JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on October 20, 2021, 05:13:52 AM
-
The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.
A Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory will not provide a list of the number of probable conspirators their conspiracy theory needs.
For example, the “Democrats stole the 2020 Election” theory never specifies an estimate of the number of conspirators needed to pull this off, like:
x – number of Dominion Voting Systems executives.
y – number of Dominion Voting Systems programmers.
z – number of election officials to manufacture fraudulent mail-in ballots.
etc.
These conspiracy theories would claim they aren’t really pushing a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. But they don’t provide a plausible estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull this off. They don’t do this because they wish to disguise that they are, indeed, pushing a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.
Similarly, CTers don’t give the following information:
* Was the Zapruder film faked.
* Number of witnesses intimidated.
* Number of witnesses killed.
* Medical experts giving false statements.
* Dallas Police involvement in the conspiracy.
* U. S. Government involvement.
* Which documents were faked, sales receipts, Marine records, etc.
* Ballistic experts.
Etc.
And a reasonable estimate of the number of conspirators involved in each category. And do to provide an estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull this off.
Of course, there are a number of dodges. One might say that one suspects the Dallas Police were involved, but are not certain. This way they can have their cake and eat it too. They can spin all kinds of stories about police involvement, but when it’s time to add to the number of conspirators they could say they should add zero, because they are only talking about possibilities, not certainties. Trump defenders could do the same thing.
I don’t know of a single Large-Secret-Conspiracy Theory that provides such estimates.
Question:
In which book, and which website can someone check out, an estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull off the Kennedy assassination?
-
The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.
A Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory will not provide a list of the number of probable conspirators their conspiracy theory needs.
For example, the “Democrats stole the 2020 Election” theory never specifies an estimate of the number of conspirators needed to pull this off, like:
x – number of Dominion Voting Systems executives.
y – number of Dominion Voting Systems programmers.
z – number of election officials to manufacture fraudulent mail-in ballots.
etc.
These conspiracy theories would claim they aren’t really pushing a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. But they don’t provide a plausible estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull this off. They don’t do this because they wish to disguise that they are, indeed, pushing a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.
Similarly, CTers don’t give the following information:
* Was the Zapruder film faked.
* Number of witnesses intimidated.
* Number of witnesses killed.
* Medical experts giving false statements.
* Dallas Police involvement in the conspiracy.
* U. S. Government involvement.
* Which documents were faked, sales receipts, Marine records, etc.
* Ballistic experts.
Etc.
And a reasonable estimate of the number of conspirators involved in each category. And do to provide an estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull this off.
Of course, there are a number of dodges. One might say that one suspects the Dallas Police were involved, but are not certain. This way they can have their cake and eat it too. They can spin all kinds of stories about police involvement, but when it’s time to add to the number of conspirators they could say they should add zero, because they are only talking about possibilities, not certainties. Trump defenders could do the same thing.
I don’t know of a single Large-Secret-Conspiracy Theory that provides such estimates.
Question:
In which book, and which website can someone check out, an estimate on the number of conspirators needed to pull off the Kennedy assassination?
No one book could handle that task, as it turns out. Bugliosi informs that when one totals up the number of shooters named in conspiracy books, it took 42-ish shooters to mow down Kennedy and 82-ish groups to mastermind the event. Haha. One conjures up images of Sonny at the toll station or Bonnie & Clyde impersonating Fearless Fosdick, he of comic book fame.
-
We still don't know where Jimmy Hoffa is yet some folks want to pretend that Conspiracies can't be kept secret for decades. ::)
-
The model I'm working has 4 people with "on the ground" foreknowledge of what was going to happen that day - Shelley, Truly, Fritz and the shooter, Dougherty.
Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run.
The impetus for the assassination would've taken place further up the TSBD chain, probably Byrd and associates (yet to look into this side of things but it seems the only way to go)
Elements of the various intelligence agencies may have known something was coming but just allowed it to happen then followed the Oswald-Did-It order that came from the top.
The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies.
-
The model I'm working has 4 people with "on the ground" foreknowledge of what was going to happen that day - Shelley, Truly, Fritz and the shooter, Dougherty.
Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run.
The impetus for the assassination would've taken place further up the TSBD chain, probably Byrd and associates (yet to look into this side of things but it seems the only way to go)
Elements of the various intelligence agencies may have known something was coming but just allowed it to happen then followed the Oswald-Did-It order that came from the top.
The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies.
The motorcade route past the Book Depository is the same route that Kennedy took in 1960 when he campaigned in Dallas. The route was used for parades in Dallas for many years before 1963 and JFK's visit to Dallas was announced as early as September 1963.
-
The motorcade route past the Book Depository is the same route that Kennedy took in 1960 when he campaigned in Dallas. The route was used for parades in Dallas for many years before 1963 and JFK's visit to Dallas was announced as early as September 1963.
Did not know any of this Jon.
I will certainly be checking out this information.
I've no doubt other serious problems will emerge with the model I'm proposing but this is a great start dealing with the one I considered the "biggie".
-
Did not know any of this Jon.
I will certainly be checking out this information.
I've no doubt other serious problems will emerge with the model I'm proposing but this is a great start dealing with the one I considered the "biggie".
I only learned of it a few years ago but it now seems plausible to me that plotters could've predicted JFK's motorcade route. Where else in Dallas would the parade have gone without passing through Dealey Plaza?
Dallas Morning News: JFK’s other Dallas parade
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/#.YXA4tdnML0o
The candidate’s open car moved eastbound with zero Secret Service protection under the benign gaze of the Texas School Book Depository. (On this day, Lee Harvey Oswald was a defector living in the Belarus capital, Minsk.)
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/img/better-paradeGallery8.jpg
(JFK shaking Jesse Curry's hand in 1960)
-
The motorcade route past the Book Depository is the same route that Kennedy took in 1960 when he campaigned in Dallas. The route was used for parades in Dallas for many years before 1963 and JFK's visit to Dallas was announced as early as September 1963.
I wonder if there are any pictures or films of JFK passing the TSBD in 1960? That would be surreal. The Dallas Morning News had an article with many pictures of the 1960 visit but I don't see any taken in DP. The motorcade apparently went "eastward" through DP in 1960.
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/#.YXBGKPrMK00
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/forgotten-photos-show-happier-jfk-visit-to-dfw/1958799/
-
I wonder if there are any pictures or films of JFK passing the TSBD in 1960? That would be surreal. The Dallas Morning News had an article with many pictures of the 1960 visit but I don't see any taken in DP. The motorcade apparently went "eastward" through DP in 1960.
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_October/JFK1960/#.YXBGKPrMK00
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/forgotten-photos-show-happier-jfk-visit-to-dfw/1958799/
True. It wasn't the exact same route but it did pass through Dealey Plaza and by the Book Depository in 1960.
-
The model I'm working has 4 people with "on the ground" foreknowledge of what was going to happen that day - Shelley, Truly, Fritz and the shooter, Dougherty.
Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run.
The impetus for the assassination would've taken place further up the TSBD chain, probably Byrd and associates (yet to look into this side of things but it seems the only way to go)
Elements of the various intelligence agencies may have known something was coming but just allowed it to happen then followed the Oswald-Did-It order that came from the top.
The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies.
Dan-
You seem like a sharp guy. So it is perplexing that you believe people like Truly, Shelly, and Fritz were somehow involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. For which there is absolutely no credible evidence. Truly even inadvertently assisted Oswald in escaping from the TSBD by confirming to the police that he was an employee. If the conspirators were intent on Oswald being framed from the crime and then silenced before he could talk, it is somewhat inexplicable that members of the conspiracy assisted Oswald in escaping the TSBD and then allowed him to speak freely before the world press.
-
Joe Elliot do you believe E Howard Hunt when he says there was a plot to kill JFK and then proceeds to name several colleagues of his from CIA departments that specialized in clandestine operations to remove 'foreign' leaders via force as the conspirators. Also, incriminating himself.
Just think about it! After everything we know about Hunt ... was he really making it up?
-
Dan-
You seem like a sharp guy. So it is perplexing that you believe people like Truly, Shelly, and Fritz were somehow involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. For which there is absolutely no credible evidence. Truly even inadvertently assisted Oswald in escaping from the TSBD by confirming to the police that he was an employee. If the conspirators were intent on Oswald being framed from the crime and then silenced before he could talk, it is somewhat inexplicable that members of the conspiracy assisted Oswald in escaping the TSBD and then allowed him to speak freely before the world press.
In the Oswald-Did-It scenario all the other TSBD employees are just men and women going about their daily routines when a lone madman causes havoc.
If these are just innocent people going about their day, why do so many of them lie in the various statements they give to the various investigating authorities:
Bill Shelley
Billy Lovelady
Bonnie Ray Williams
Hank Norman
Junior Jarman
Charles Givens
Jack Dougherty
All of them lie in their various statements - not misunderstandings or "misrememberances" - out and out lies.
Why?
Once I started understanding why they were lying it became clear, to me at least, Oswald wasn't acting alone.
Once that became clear, I was in the wacky world of conspiracy.
-
We still don't know where Jimmy Hoffa is yet some folks want to pretend that Conspiracies can't be kept secret for decades. ::)
Were hundreds of Dallas Police officers involved in covering up the Jimmy Hoffa murder. Was Jimmy Hoffa’s autopsy faked? Was film of his murder ever found and possibly faked? Could Jimmy Hoffa have been murdered by not hundreds but by a handful of people?
I never said Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracies cannot happen, and kept secret for decades, or even forever. I am only talking about Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies. Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are wildly unlikely for obvious reasons.
Is there any evidence that a Large-Secret-Conspiracy killed Jimmy Hoffa? Hundreds of mafia members involved? Or could it have been under a half dozen?
Question:
Where do CTers make the case that only a handful of conspirators were needed to kill President Kennedy, fabricate the evidence, intimate or eliminate witnesses, not to mention steer America into the Vietnam war?
I know of no such article. But if I am mistaken, please direct us to such a website or book.
-
It wasn't the exact same route but it did pass through Dealey Plaza and by the Book Depository in 1960.
Up main street from the Triple Underpass I would think.Dan-
You seem like a sharp guy. So it is perplexing that you believe people like Truly, Shelly, and Fritz were somehow involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. For which there is absolutely no credible evidence.
All of them lie in their various statements - not misunderstandings or "misrememberances" - out and out lies. Why? Once I started understanding why they were lying it became clear, to me at least.....
Threads upon threads have been done on these guys. Firstly----"Cover thy behind"
Fear is the greatest motivator.
-
The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory.
J. Edgar Hoover said in a memo two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination that the public must be led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.Hoover dictated: "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/jfk-files-j-edgar-hoover-said-public-must-believe-lee-n814881
And that is no theory.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/jdkkrZTZ/1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCdS2Wn2/2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VsKKjDJm/3.jpg)
The reality. Smirking and winking whilst Mr's Kennedy's back is turned. A cuddle and commiserations from the snakes.
American exceptionalism brainwashing victims refuse to accept the truth. What they inflicted upon many other nations also visited them.
-
Up main street from the Triple Underpass I would think. Threads upon threads have been done on these guys. Firstly----"Cover thy behind"
Fear is the greatest motivator.
If theses are just innocent men going about their working day why do they need to cover their behind?
"Cover thy behind" about what? Surely, if they're not involved in any way, they just tell the DPD, FBI and SS what they did and saw.
In a day when these authorities were feared and respected, why would it occur to a normal working man to lie to them?
"Fear is the greatest motivator."
Fear of what?
What do these men have to fear if they've done or seen nothing wrong?
-
Joe,
You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.
For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.
The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.
-
In the Oswald-Did-It scenario all the other TSBD employees are just men and women going about their daily routines when a lone madman causes havoc.
If these are just innocent people going about their day, why do so many of them lie in the various statements they give to the various investigating authorities:
Bill Shelley
Billy Lovelady
Bonnie Ray Williams
Hank Norman
Junior Jarman
Charles Givens
Jack Dougherty
All of them lie in their various statements - not misunderstandings or "misrememberances" - out and out lies.
Why?
Once I started understanding why they were lying it became clear, to me at least, Oswald wasn't acting alone.
Once that became clear, I was in the wacky world of conspiracy.
Lots of people have gone about their business not realizing some murderous nut was in their presence. How many times have you seen them interview the next door neighbor of some serial killer and have them say they had no clue? No one at the TSBD had much cause to take any notice of Oswald. He was a quiet guy. Hadn't worked there very long. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a "lie" in the various statements of these witnesses. If this case demonstrates anything, it is that witnesses have imperfect recollections, use subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times, and no one can estimate time with exact scientific precision. What is considered a lie is just sometimes interpreting what a witness meant and then claiming it conflicts with a desired conclusion which may also be unproven.
-
Joe,
You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.
For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.
The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.
My thoughts exactly. I would add that the motives for the conspiracy and cover-ups are often not the same.
The cover-ups happen to protect organizations from major scrutiny or consequences. What often happens is that investigators find evidence for other potential crimes and abuses which could get other people in trouble (ie Paul Manafort going to prison for fraud and corruption even though he wasn't prosecuted for helping Russia meddle in the 2016 election).
So there are lots of reasons why people who were not involved in the conspiracy would feel compelled to cover up evidence of conspiracy.
As for the Dallas PD, I attribute most of the problems with their handling of the evidence to incompetence. However, the three people I find most suspicious in Dallas at that time are: William Westbrook, JC Day, and DA Henry Wade. All three were in the position to control or manipulate the evidence.
-
Lots of people have gone about their business not realizing some murderous nut was in their presence. How many times have you seen them interview the next door neighbor of some serial killer and have them say they had no clue? No one at the TSBD had much cause to take any notice of Oswald. He was a quiet guy. Hadn't worked there very long. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by a "lie" in the various statements of these witnesses. If this case demonstrates anything, it is that witnesses have imperfect recollections, use subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times, and no one can estimate time with exact scientific precision. What is considered a lie is just sometimes interpreting what a witness meant and then claiming it conflicts with a desired conclusion which may also be unproven.
The subject of the lying by the various TSBD employees needs it's own thread as it is too involved to get into in a single post. An example will have to suffice:
Hours after the assassination Bonnie Ray Williams is asked to give a statement concerning what he did and saw around the time of the assassination. In it he states:
"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got to the 5th floor we saw the President coming round the corner on Houston from Main Street."
This is not an 'imperfect recollection'.
Nor is it the use of "subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times".
This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie.
Do you disagree?
Imagine a black man being interviewed by the Dallas police in the early '60's about the most important crime ever to occur in that country and he decides to lie about what he did!!
I, personally, find that staggering and generalised statements about imperfect recollections does not cut it.
Bonnie Ray Williams lied on his same-day affidavit.
This may mean nothing to you but it does to me.
-
The subject of the lying by the various TSBD employees needs it's own thread as it is too involved to get into in a single post. An example will have to suffice:
Hours after the assassination Bonnie Ray Williams is asked to give a statement concerning what he did and saw around the time of the assassination. In it he states:
"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got to the 5th floor we saw the President coming round the corner on Houston from Main Street."
This is not an 'imperfect recollection'.
Nor is it the use of "subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times".
This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie.
Do you disagree?
Imagine a black man being interviewed by the Dallas police in the early '60's about the most important crime ever to occur in that country and he decides to lie about what he did!!
I, personally, find that staggering and generalised statements about imperfect recollections does not cut it.
Bonnie Ray Williams lied on his same-day affidavit.
This may mean nothing to you but it does to me.
"This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie."
I see you've joined the chorus:
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
Excerpt from the
CT BOOK OF OSWALD
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0Rn40rb/OSWALD-IN-COLOUR.png)
-
"This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie."
I see you've joined the chorus:
BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
Excerpt from the
CT BOOK OF OSWALD
(https://i.postimg.cc/d0Rn40rb/OSWALD-IN-COLOUR.png)
Grow up Bill.
Williams clearly lies on his same day affidavit then does a 180 the next day when the FBI come calling.
Why does he lie?
The lying of so many TSBD employees is a massive problem for the LN narrative.
Your only option is to counter it with meaningless posts.
-
The subject of the lying by the various TSBD employees needs it's own thread as it is too involved to get into in a single post. An example will have to suffice:
Hours after the assassination Bonnie Ray Williams is asked to give a statement concerning what he did and saw around the time of the assassination. In it he states:
"We worked up until about 10 minutes to 12. Then we went downstairs. We rode the elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior, I don't know his last name. Just after we got to the 5th floor we saw the President coming round the corner on Houston from Main Street."
This is not an 'imperfect recollection'.
Nor is it the use of "subjective, non-specific language to describe events and times".
This is the creation of a new reality. A reality that did not occur. This is an out and out lie.
Do you disagree?
Imagine a black man being interviewed by the Dallas police in the early '60's about the most important crime ever to occur in that country and he decides to lie about what he did!!
I, personally, find that staggering and generalised statements about imperfect recollections does not cut it.
Bonnie Ray Williams lied on his same-day affidavit.
This may mean nothing to you but it does to me.
You have provided a non-conspiracy explanation yourself. In the 1960s maybe a black man doesn't want to acknowledge to the police that he was on the floor from which the President was assassinated just minutes later. Maybe he just doesn't think it is all that important to mention since he saw nothing on the 6th floor to report. It's a very short statement that does not contain every detail. That doesn't make it a lie or mean he was covering up something as part of a conspiracy. Also notice his use of "I" and "we" in the statement consistent with his actions if you fill in the omission. Lots of plausible reasons. People did things that day that seem inexplicable. Frazier went into the building and ate his lunch just after watching the president get assassinated. Women who believed the shots were fired from the TSBD nevertheless went back into the building to go back to work. What is important to us with 60 years of hindsight might not have seemed like a crucial detail to someone writing a short statement of events just after the fact.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/jdkkrZTZ/1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCdS2Wn2/2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VsKKjDJm/3.jpg)
The reality. Smirking and winking whilst Mr's Kennedy's back is turned. A cuddle and commiserations from the snakes.
American exceptionalism brainwashing victims refuse to accept the truth. What they inflicted upon many other nations also visited them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g032nC8c/me-i-thought-that-was-you.png)
-
Grow up Bill.
Williams clearly lies on his same day affidavit then does a 180 the next day when the FBI come calling.
Why does he lie?
The lying of so many TSBD employees is a massive problem for the LN narrative.
Your only option is to counter it with meaningless posts.
My option is to quote the witnesses
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4qPcBm6/1026-WHALEY.png)
billchapman
William Whaley
(https://i.postimg.cc/R07N2Y8c/Screen-Shot-2021.png)
billchapman
What Earlene Roberts witnessed around 1:00pm
at Oswald's safe house 11.22.63
-------------------------------
WITNESSES_GROUP OF 12+
------------------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrtzC7bQ/BTYPE-MARKHAM-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Helen Markham_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzK6bC4t/BTYPE-CALLAWAY-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Ted Callaway_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QByFRKk/BTYPE-BDAVIS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Barbara Davis_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0yq4f8h/BTYPE-VDAVIS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Victoria Davis_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xQBYfcK/BTYPE-GUINYARD-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Sam Guinyard_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/43dwS70t/BTYPE-REYNOLDS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Warren Reynolds_Group of 12
-
You have provided a non-conspiracy explanation yourself. In the 1960s maybe a black man doesn't want to acknowledge to the police that he was on the floor from which the President was assassinated just minutes later.
So you agree, he does lie about not being on the 6th floor?
However, the reason you offer makes zero sense. A young black male, being interviewed by notoriously racist police, decides to lie to their faces concerning a crime of such magnitude because he was on the same floor as the assassin? Rather than just tell them everything he knows.
You may think that is somehow plausible but I do not.
And how do you know that Williams knew where the assassin fired from by the time he was taken in?
Maybe he just doesn't think it is all that important to mention since he saw nothing on the 6th floor to report.
This is a really bizarre comment.
If he saw nothing to report why would he create a lie to avoid telling the police he was up there?
Remember - it's not that BRW fails to mention being on the 6th floor, that could be forgetfulness, the important thing is that he creates a new reality (deliberately lies) in order to give the impression he was never there.
Also of importance is that he drags Norman and Jarman into this lie.
How could he tell this specific lie if he knew Norman and Jarman would say something different when they were interviewed.
Why would he tell such an easily refuted lie to the Dallas police, knowing there would be very severe consequences when caught out in that lie?
The only feasible explanation is that he was confident Jarman and Norman would support him in the lie.
Which is exactly what they do.
It's a very short statement that does not contain every detail. That doesn't make it a lie or mean he was covering up something as part of a conspiracy.
It contains these details - after collecting his lunch he accompanies Jarman and Norman up to the 5th floor and shortly after they all arrive on the 5th floor the motorcade arrives.
This is a complete fabrication, a deliberate untruth, a lie.
It is not a misunderstanding due to the brevity of the affidavit or "misremberance". It is the creation of a falsehood.
How can we be sure that is the case?
Because the very next day he tells the FBI the following:
"At approximately 12 noon, WILLIAMS went back upstairs in the elevator to the sixth floor with his lunch. He stayed on that floor only about three minutes, and seeing no-one there, descended to the fifth floor using the stairs at the west end of the building. There he joined two other men known to him as HANK and JUNIOR"
In this account, given 24 hrs after the first, BRW now goes up to the 6th floor on his own, sees there is no-one there and goes down to the 5th floor to Norman and Jarman.
This is a completely different account to the lie he told the DPD.
Extraordinarily he also lies to the FBI !!
I find this quite mind-blowing - it's one thing to lie to the DPD but then to lie to the FBI is off the charts.
Williams states that he is on the 6th floor for only 3 minutes, sees no-one there, and comes down to the 5th floor.
We now know this is a complete lie.
BRW is up on the 6th for around 25 minutes having his lunch before he goes down to the 5th floor.
Remember - he's not giving this statement months later, it's the day after the assassination!
He is supposed to be giving an accurate description of his movements by the FBI as part of an investigation into the assassination of the President of the United States...and he lies!
And this is not the end of his lying, it continues into his WC testimony.
And a pattern emerges - he is at pains to downplay how long he is on the 6th and to distance himself from the Sniper's Nest while he is up there.
If you can think of a REASONABLE explanation why he does this I would like to hear it.
LATER EDIT: I am not implying that BRW is in anyway involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
-
My option is to quote the witnesses
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4qPcBm6/1026-WHALEY.png)
billchapman
William Whaley
(https://i.postimg.cc/R07N2Y8c/Screen-Shot-2021.png)
billchapman
What Earlene Roberts witnessed around 1:00pm
at Oswald's safe house 11.22.63
-------------------------------
WITNESSES_GROUP OF 12+
------------------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrtzC7bQ/BTYPE-MARKHAM-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Helen Markham_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzK6bC4t/BTYPE-CALLAWAY-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Ted Callaway_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QByFRKk/BTYPE-BDAVIS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Barbara Davis_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0yq4f8h/BTYPE-VDAVIS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Victoria Davis_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xQBYfcK/BTYPE-GUINYARD-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Sam Guinyard_Group of 12
(https://i.postimg.cc/43dwS70t/BTYPE-REYNOLDS-PUBLISH.png)
billchapman
Warren Reynolds_Group of 12
What did I say:
"Your only option is to counter it with meaningless posts."
WTF does the Tippit murder have to do with Bonnie Ray Williams?
Don't bother to answer Bill as we all know the answer. ::)
-
So you agree, he does lie about not being on the 6th floor?
However, the reason you offer makes zero sense. A young black male, being interviewed by notoriously racist police, decides to lie to their faces concerning a crime of such magnitude because he was on the same floor as the assassin? Rather than just tell them everything he knows.
You may think that is somehow plausible but I do not.
And how do you know that Williams knew where the assassin fired from by the time he was taken in?
This is a really bizarre comment.
If he saw nothing to report why would he create a lie to avoid telling the police he was up there?
Remember - it's not that BRW fails to mention being on the 6th floor, that could be forgetfulness, the important thing is that he creates a new reality (deliberately lies) in order to give the impression he was never there.
Also of importance is that he drags Norman and Jarman into this lie.
How could he tell this specific lie if he knew Norman and Jarman would say something different when they were interviewed.
Why would he tell such an easily refuted lie to the Dallas police, knowing there would be very severe consequences when caught out in that lie?
The only feasible explanation is that he was confident Jarman and Norman would support him in the lie.
Which is exactly what they do.
It contains these details - after collecting his lunch he accompanies Jarman and Norman up to the 5th floor and shortly after they all arrive on the 5th floor the motorcade arrives.
This is a complete fabrication, a deliberate untruth, a lie.
It is not a misunderstanding due to the brevity of the affidavit or "misremberance". It is the creation of a falsehood.
How can we be sure that is the case?
Because the very next day he tells the FBI the following:
"At approximately 12 noon, WILLIAMS went back upstairs in the elevator to the sixth floor with his lunch. He stayed on that floor only about three minutes, and seeing no-one there, descended to the fifth floor using the stairs at the west end of the building. There he joined two other men known to him as HANK and JUNIOR"
In this account, given 24 hrs after the first, BRW now goes up to the 6th floor on his own, sees there is no-one there and goes down to the 5th floor to Norman and Jarman.
This is a completely different account to the lie he told the DPD.
Extraordinarily he also lies to the FBI !!
I find this quite mind-blowing - it's one thing to lie to the DPD but then to lie to the FBI is off the charts.
Williams states that he is on the 6th floor for only 3 minutes, sees no-one there, and comes down to the 5th floor.
We now know this is a complete lie.
BRW is up on the 6th for around 25 minutes having his lunch before he goes down to the 5th floor.
Remember - he's not giving this statement months later, it's the day after the assassination!
He is being to give an accurate description of his movements by the FBI as part of an investigation into the assassination of the President of the United States...and he lies!
And this is not the end of his lying, it continues into his WC testimony.
And a pattern emerges - he is at pains to downplay how long he is on the 6th and to distance himself from the Sniper's Nest while he is up there.
If you can think of a REASONABLE explanation why he does this I would like to hear it.
LATER EDIT: I am not implying that BRW is in anyway involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
If you are not implying that he was involved in a conspiracy, then what difference does it make and why list him as having foreknowledge of the assassination? Are you suggesting he saw the assassin (Oswald or otherwise) and they just let him leave the floor trusting he wouldn't raise the alarm and he decided to go down to the window directly below the one he has cause to suspect is being used by the assassin? And he stays forever silent about whatever he saw? That is very farfetched. It's only in your interpretation that he creates any lie. It's an omission in a very short statement. For which there are several plausible reasons. Not the least of which is that he saw nothing of importance on the 6th floor to mention in his initial short statement. His estimate of time, like that of almost every witness in this case, is all over the place. He had no particular cause to note how many minutes it took him to eat lunch that day. And later he just makes an estimate based on his faulty memory. I don't see anything here particularly sinister.
-
If you are not implying that he was involved in a conspiracy, then what difference does it make and why list him as having foreknowledge of the assassination? Are you suggesting he saw the assassin (Oswald or otherwise) and they just let him leave the floor trusting he wouldn't raise the alarm and he decided to go down to the window directly below the one he has cause to suspect is being used by the assassin? And he stays forever silent about whatever he saw? That is very farfetched. It's only in your interpretation that he creates any lie. It's an omission in a very short statement. For which there are several plausible reasons. Not the least of which is that he saw nothing of importance on the 6th floor to mention in his initial short statement. His estimate of time, like that of almost every witness in this case, is all over the place. He had no particular cause to note how many minutes it took him to eat lunch that day. And later he just makes an estimate based on his faulty memory. I don't see anything here particularly sinister.
"If you are not implying that he was involved in a conspiracy, then what difference does it make and why list him as having foreknowledge of the assassination?"
I'm not implying that he wasn't involved in the assassination - I'm stating it very clearly.
Nowhere have I put Williams on a list of people with foreknowledge of the assassination. That is an error on your part.
"It's an omission in a very short statement."
I've gone to great lengths to make it clear it is not an "omission". It is the creation of a false narrative. He hasn't left something out of his statement, he has added something that didn't happen. He has fabricated a different version of events, not forgotten to mention something that happened.
By any measure he has lied to the DPD and then to the FBI.
You can underplay it all you want.
According to your understanding of events, how long is BRW up on the 6th floor having his lunch?
-
"If you are not implying that he was involved in a conspiracy, then what difference does it make and why list him as having foreknowledge of the assassination?"
I'm not implying that he wasn't involved in the assassination - I'm stating it very clearly.
Nowhere have I put Williams on a list of people with foreknowledge of the assassination. That is an error on your part.
"It's an omission in a very short statement."
I've gone to great lengths to make it clear it is not an "omission". It is the creation of a false narrative. He hasn't left something out of his statement, he has added something that didn't happen. He has fabricated a different version of events, not forgotten to mention something that happened.
By any measure he has lied to the DPD and then to the FBI.
You can underplay it all you want.
According to your understanding of events, how long is BRW up on the 6th floor having his lunch?
I have no idea how long he was there eating lunch. He didn't know himself because he had no cause to believe it mattered at the time. He gave different estimates. Just as many people in the case gave wrong times and estimates of times. As a result, no one can say for sure. What matters is whether he saw anything. He says he didn't. It defies belief that any assassin, much less a conspiracy of more than one person, acting for months or years to frame Oswald, would allow someone to leave the 6th floor after seeing something and trust them not to raise the alarm and remain forever silent. And then that person decides to go to the window directly below that from which he has cause to suspect something is up and possibly get caught in the cross fire.
At worst, perhaps as a black man in the 1960s South, BRW initially was reluctant to admit that he had been on the 6th floor just minutes before the president was murdered from that location. Black men had been punished for much less at that time. But that isn't a lie per se. He never denied being there. He simply did not volunteer that information in his initial short statement. Most likely because he saw nothing while eating lunch and didn't think it mattered. He later explained it when questioned at greater length. In his statement, he says "we" went down the elevator but then "I" went to the 5th floor. That is entirely consistent with his actions.
-
The special pleading exhibited here by "Richard" is unbelievable. When Oswald "omits details that don't matter" he's a liar with a consciousness of guilt because he just murdered the president.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/g032nC8c/me-i-thought-that-was-you.png)
Your attempt to comfort yourself with lame absurdity will not ever disguise the depth of depravity that runs right through USA's corruption spewing century of dominance. As if the two sickest individuals in American politics/security service (you jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination) are even remotely considered above such depraved abuses of power that were needed to successfully maintain the wicked conspiratorial lies to deprive the people of the truth.
You seriously live in the delusion that Hoover and LBJ didn't find it advantageous to see the back of JFK? Sad bastard.
-
I have no idea how long he was there eating lunch. He didn't know himself because he had no cause to believe it mattered at the time. He gave different estimates.
I find your unfamiliarity with the witness testimony on such a pivotal question surprising.
The reason it is a pivotal question is that the witness testimony makes it abundantly clear Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Obviously you are uncomfortable with this.
Unlike you, I have a very good idea how long he was eating lunch there and I will lay out the testimonial evidence as I see it.
After his initial fabrication to the DPD (that he travelled up to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman), BRW is interviewed by the FBI the next day. He concedes that he went up to the 6th floor alone, that he saw no-one there and went down to the 5th floor. No mention of eating his lunch. He is only up there for 3 minutes.
On January 14th, agents Carter and Griffin report that BRW said he went down to the 5th floor at 12:05 pm
During his WC testimony he is asked how long he stayed on the 6th floor. He replies:
"I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes."
Later in the same testimony he is asked what time he saw Norman and Jarman. He replies:
"It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12."
He is then asked to clarify what time, approximately, he left the 6th floor. He replies:
"Approximately 12:20, maybe."
As you point out, Williams gives various estimations for his time on the 6th floor. You would like to believe it's just a muddled memory but there is a distinct pattern to his estimates - the more he is questioned, the longer he is up there.
3 minutes, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 minutes.
20 minutes!
At first he tries to distance himself from the 6th floor completely, then he tries to minimise the time he is up there.
In order to clarify how long Williams was up there we must turn to the evidence given by the two men he meets up with on the 5th floor - Norman and Jarman.
Both men make their way out to the front of the TSBD. When asked how long he was out front, Norman gives a very specific timestamp. He states that they stayed out front until they heard the motorcade was on Main Street. According to the DPD dispatch tapes the motorcade is approaching Main Street at 12:22 pm. We can say with confidence Norman and Jarman are still stood outside the TSBD at 12:22 pm.
When Jarman is asked the same question he replies:
"Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."
This corroborates Norman's timestamp which removes the "muddled memory" argument.
When asked what time he arrived on the 6th floor Jarman replies:
"That was about 12:25 or 12:28."
At 12:22 pm Norman and Jarman are stood outside the front of the TSBD.
Williams is up on the 6th floor having his lunch.
Seven minutes before this, at 12:15 pm, Arnold Rowland reports seeing a black male in the SN window at a time when Williams is having his lunch on the 6th floor. Rowland also reports seeing a white male carrying a high powered, scoped rifle on the same floor at the same time.
According to all this testimonial evidence it is safe to say Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Do you have any credible counter-evidence?
Do you disagree with this assessment of the testimonial evidence?
At worst, perhaps as a black man in the 1960s South, BRW initially was reluctant to admit that he had been on the 6th floor just minutes before the president was murdered from that location. Black men had been punished for much less at that time.
?? But he wasn't "reluctant" to lie to the DPD and FBI??
Are you joking? You think lying to law enforcement agencies investigating the assassination of the president is somehow plausible for a black man in the 1960's South?
But that isn't a lie per se. He never denied being there. He simply did not volunteer that information in his initial short statement.
For the third time - he doesn't leave information out of his initial DPD statement, it isn't an omission or forgetfulness.
For the third time - Williams gives details of something that didn't happen. He lies. There is no other word for it.
He states he went up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman. He embellishes on this lie when he says that shortly after they reached the 5th floor the motorcade arrived.
None of this is true. He's made it up. He's created a false narrative. He has deliberately lied.
Your unreasonableness over this point is noted. I've no doubt you will keep on repeating the same point.
Most likely because he saw nothing while eating lunch and didn't think it mattered.
Again, this truly bizarre suggestion.
If he saw nothing why would he lie?
Think about it.
He later explained it when questioned at greater length. In his statement, he says "we" went down the elevator but then "I" went to the 5th floor. That is entirely consistent with his actions.
Utterly meaningless.
Your post is really weak and I don't think you should be taking on an issue like this if you are as unfamiliar with the witness testimony as you appear to be (although I strongly suspect you are more than familiar with the relevant evidence).
If you have a different (reasonable) interpretation of the evidence I've presented let's hear it.
Your last recourse is to simply classify me as one of the many nut-jobs plying their trade on this forum and walk away from this discussion. I advise this course of action.
-
No, "Richard" isn't all that familiar with the evidence and he doesn't even care. "Oswald did it" is all he needs to know.
-
Joe Elliott do you believe E Howard Hunt when he says there was a plot to kill JFK and then proceeds to name several colleagues of his from CIA departments that specialized in clandestine operations to remove 'foreign' leaders via force as the conspirators. Also, incriminating himself.
Just think about it! After everything we know about Hunt ... was he really making it up?
Do I believe E. Howard Hunt? No. I would not believe anything he had to say.
I think E. Howard Hunt was falsely implicating President Lyndon Johnson in the assassination because he was bitter about Johnson’s support of Civil Rights legislation. If E. Howard Hunt was still alive today I would have no doubt that he would be a big supporter of Donald Trump.
-
Joe,
You seem to assume that everybody you think would have needed to be involved in a conspiracy was completely informed about everything and an active and willing participant. I think your assumption is wrong.
For a conspiracy to work, all that was required is that the actual conspirators had control of the evidence and the investigation. Prior to the assassination all they needed was a small group of people to set up Oswald (which really wasn't so difficult) and a small team to carry out the actual assassination. I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of the people somehow involved in the case, were so on a need to know basis and/or acting on orders, without actually knowing what was really going on and what the big picture really was.
The massive number of anomalies in the physical evidence clearly suggests that the evidence was manipulated and adapted to the narrative we know today.
First, I would like to point out that this exact defense could be used for any Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory:
“Only a few of the heads of Dominion Voting Systems were aware of this conspiracy. The computer programmers who made it happen were just following instructions. So, when told that if Trump won Arizona, they should write code that would add enough votes to the Biden totals to allow Biden to win Arizona, and so they do so. But they did not realize that this was done to allow Biden to win the election regardless of who won the election. They didn’t realize that similar instructions were given to others who were writing the computer code for other states. So, only a few really had a big picture of what was going on.”
Similarly:
“Only a few at the top of the Dallas Police Department knew what was going on. One was ordered to place a bullet on a stretcher. Another was ordered to plant fake documents to make it appear that Oswald ordered a rifle. Another was ordered to put a gun in Oswald’s hand while he was arrested. But none of them knew that this was done to frame Oswald. None of them really knew the big picture.
Secondly, you have not made an:
* Estimate of the number who helped the conspiracy.
* Nor, a number who were not but followed orders as if they were involved in the conspiracy.
* And how did the conspirators know ahead of time that so many others who were not part of the conspiracy would help them out, as if they were involved.
* Nor, a list of evidence that was modified or faked, to explain all the “anomalies”.
Anyone who supports a conspiracy theory, needs to lay out this information, so one can judge if the conspiracy theory is a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, or not. As basically CTers, or 99% of them, do not do so. Failure to do so should convince a rational skeptical thinker to conclude that this is a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory and that this theory can be dismissed for that reason alone, the same reason rational skeptics have dismissed other conspiracy theories over the centuries like:
* Elders of Zion conspiracy theory.
* Illuminati conspiracy theory.
* Freemason conspiracy theory.
The same rational reasoning that worked two centuries ago still works today.
Thirdly, JFK CTers could argue, it doesn’t matter if Trump is elected (or selected by various Secretary of State for Georgia, etc.) because the same “Deep State” put in place by the JFK assassination will still be in place. I would hold that this is a dangerous belief.
-
The model I'm working has 4 people with "on the ground" foreknowledge of what was going to happen that day - Shelley, Truly, Fritz and the shooter, Dougherty.
Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run.
The impetus for the assassination would've taken place further up the TSBD chain, probably Byrd and associates (yet to look into this side of things but it seems the only way to go)
Elements of the various intelligence agencies may have known something was coming but just allowed it to happen then followed the Oswald-Did-It order that came from the top.
The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies.
A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned.
Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven.
You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy.
And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?
Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?
-
A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned.
Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven.
You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy.
And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?
Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?
"A conspiracy as small as this is clearly not what 99% of CTers have envisioned."
This thread is asking an important question.
There can be no doubt that the vast majority of CTers are weak minded lunatics who have no interest in actually finding out what was going with the JFK case. They are simply propping up their own fragile egos at the expense of the truth. It's disgusting really and embarrassing that I am lumped in with them by default.
Because witness evidence is contradictory by nature and the investigation was unbelievably incompetent, not to mention corrupt, these people can come up with any outlandish theory they want, no matter how large it gets.
"Also, you sometimes list four names, sometimes seven."
The list of four - Truly, Shelley, Fritz and Dougherty - are those who had foreknowledge of events that day.
The list of seven - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Dougherty, Givens - are those who clearly lied to the investigating authorities. Williams, Norman and Jarman did not lie because they were part of the conspiracy they lied because Williams saw something he shouldn't have seen. Williams tried to distance himself from it and dragged Norman and Jarman into his lie as back up.
"You also allude to oil companies but do not provide an estimate of the number involved in the conspiracy."
I've made no mention of oil companies.
"And did this “small” conspiracy (just the employees of the TSBD, oh, and the oil industry) fake the paperwork linking the rifle to Oswald? Did they fake the autopsy? Did they fake the backyard photographs?"
None of this was faked.
I don't believe any evidence was faked.
Some important evidence was destroyed/lost such as BRW's lunch remains including the soda bottle.
Forrest Sorrels taking Oswald's shirt out to Bledsoe so she could make notes seems a weird use of evidence.
But I don't believe anything was faked.
I'm working on a "Patsy" model, so Oswald can do all the things he is said to have done - bought a rifle and revolver, got Marina to take photos etc.
"Exactly what evidence was tampered with by the conspiracy?"
Obviously, I've given the example of the lunch remains and Bledsoe.
There are other small examples of tampering but not on some kind of industrial scale.
You must remember, the order, from the very top, that the investigation into the murder was to focus solely on Oswald, really happened. This led to a skewing of the investigation. Which in turn led to moments of corruption. Not as part of a conscious conspiracy put as part of "following orders."
-
Your attempt to comfort yourself with lame absurdity will not ever disguise the depth of depravity that runs right through USA's corruption spewing century of dominance. As if the two sickest individuals in American politics/security service (you jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination) are even remotely considered above such depraved abuses of power that were needed to successfully maintain the wicked conspiratorial lies to deprive the people of the truth.
You seriously live in the delusion that Hoover and LBJ didn't find it advantageous to see the back of JFK? Sad bastard.
jokingly use to mock the JFK assassination
_Nah, to mock oswald arse kissers
Meantime, back here on Planet Earth:
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpyV6CRz/cartoon-library-section.png)
-
Do I believe E. Howard Hunt? No. I would not believe anything he had to say.
I think E. Howard Hunt was falsely implicating President Lyndon Johnson in the assassination because he was bitter about Johnson’s support of Civil Rights legislation. If E. Howard Hunt was still alive today I would have no doubt that he would be a big supporter of Donald Trump.
That's quite fascinating. You manage to crowbar Trump into almost every scenario, even to character assassinate someone that is long dead. This same person you vilify as being of not good character was an ex-Assassin for Uncle Sam, a known very good sniper, in fact. Someone that took those skills at killing people into the CIA's intelligence agency machinations. Hunt was so good he was heavily involved with the assassination/overthrow attempts on Castro. And one of the men E Howard Hunt named (in plotting the assassination of JFK) was Bill Harvey - the CIA's notorious assassination expert. Someone whose intelligence background brought him into contact with a Mr Lee Harvey Oswald (Harvey's involvement with the false defector plan). What are the chances?
You know Oswald was CIA.
Keep dreaming it didn't happen.
-
You know Oswald was CIA.
No, I didn’t. I had no idea that the CIA paid its agents paid such a pittance. Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
That's quite fascinating. You manage to crowbar Trump into almost every scenario, even to character assassinate someone that is long dead. This same person you vilify as being of not good character was an ex-Assassin for Uncle Sam, a known very good sniper, in fact. Someone that took those skills at killing people into the CIA's intelligence agency machinations. Hunt was so good he was heavily involved with the assassination/overthrow attempts on Castro. And one of the men E Howard Hunt named (in plotting the assassination of JFK) was Bill Harvey - the CIA's notorious assassination expert. Someone whose intelligence background brought him into contact with a Mr Lee Harvey Oswald (Harvey's involvement with the false defector plan). What are the chances?
Well, the “Stolen 2020 Election” is the most recent major Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory that I have heard about in the last few years. And millions seem to believe it. So, I think it is natural that I should refer to it when I refer to other such conspiracy theories, like the JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
And I noticed that you, like the other CTers dodge my question. What evidence was faked. And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.
Questions:
1. Where did all that money the CIA paid Oswald over the years end up? Why couldn’t it have been used for his wife and daughters. Or, if nothing else, to support his mother before 1963?
If Oswald was working for free, can you name another American CIA agent who worked for free? Or was Oswald the only one?
2. Do you believe the JFK assassination was a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy? Or a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy?
3. What evidence was faked by the conspirators?
The autopsy photographs? Autopsy X-rays? The Autopsy report? CE-399? The bullet fragments? The Zapruder film? The other Dealey Plaza films? The Dealey Plaza photographs? The General Walker evidence? The Oswald purchasing a rifle evidence?
4. How many people, do you estimate would be needed to pull off the assassination and the fake evidence?
-
No, I didn’t. I had no idea that the CIA paid its agents paid such a pittance. Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
Well, the “Stolen 2020 Election” is the most recent major Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory that I have heard about in the last few years. And millions seem to believe it. So, I think it is natural that I should refer to it when I refer to other such conspiracy theories, like the JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
And I noticed that you, like the other CTers dodge my question. What evidence was faked. And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.
Questions:
1. Where did all that money the CIA paid Oswald over the years end up? Why couldn’t it have been used for his wife and daughters. Or, if nothing else, to support his mother before 1963?
If Oswald was working for free, can you name another American CIA agent who worked for free? Or was Oswald the only one?
2. Do you believe the JFK assassination was a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy? Or a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy?
3. What evidence was faked by the conspirators?
The autopsy photographs? Autopsy X-rays? The Autopsy report? CE-399? The bullet fragments? The Zapruder film? The other Dealey Plaza films? The Dealey Plaza photographs? The General Walker evidence? The Oswald purchasing a rifle evidence?
4. How many people, do you estimate would be needed to pull off the assassination and the fake evidence?
Let me ask you three questions, without any predetermination about what the answer would have to be to be acceptable (as you usually do);
And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.
Why don't you simply explain what you understand to be "the conspiracy"?
Are we talking about the planning and execution of the murder or about what happened after that or both?
Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
Do you think you know all there is to know about Oswald?
What evidence was faked by the conspirators?
What exactly do you mean by evidence that was faked?
Perhaps this a black or white issue for you, but do you - for example - think the Klein's order form for the rifle needs to be fake for Oswald not have ordered the rifle for himself?
I'm asking these questions for the purpose of clarification, because without the answers it's going to be difficult for me to enter into a discussion with you about this subject.
-
I find your unfamiliarity with the witness testimony on such a pivotal question surprising.
The reason it is a pivotal question is that the witness testimony makes it abundantly clear Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Obviously you are uncomfortable with this.
Unlike you, I have a very good idea how long he was eating lunch there and I will lay out the testimonial evidence as I see it.
After his initial fabrication to the DPD (that he travelled up to the 5th floor with Norman and Jarman), BRW is interviewed by the FBI the next day. He concedes that he went up to the 6th floor alone, that he saw no-one there and went down to the 5th floor. No mention of eating his lunch. He is only up there for 3 minutes.
On January 14th, agents Carter and Griffin report that BRW said he went down to the 5th floor at 12:05 pm
During his WC testimony he is asked how long he stayed on the 6th floor. He replies:
"I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes."
Later in the same testimony he is asked what time he saw Norman and Jarman. He replies:
"It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12."
He is then asked to clarify what time, approximately, he left the 6th floor. He replies:
"Approximately 12:20, maybe."
As you point out, Williams gives various estimations for his time on the 6th floor. You would like to believe it's just a muddled memory but there is a distinct pattern to his estimates - the more he is questioned, the longer he is up there.
3 minutes, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 20 minutes.
20 minutes!
At first he tries to distance himself from the 6th floor completely, then he tries to minimise the time he is up there.
In order to clarify how long Williams was up there we must turn to the evidence given by the two men he meets up with on the 5th floor - Norman and Jarman.
Both men make their way out to the front of the TSBD. When asked how long he was out front, Norman gives a very specific timestamp. He states that they stayed out front until they heard the motorcade was on Main Street. According to the DPD dispatch tapes the motorcade is approaching Main Street at 12:22 pm. We can say with confidence Norman and Jarman are still stood outside the TSBD at 12:22 pm.
When Jarman is asked the same question he replies:
"Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."
This corroborates Norman's timestamp which removes the "muddled memory" argument.
When asked what time he arrived on the 6th floor Jarman replies:
"That was about 12:25 or 12:28."
At 12:22 pm Norman and Jarman are stood outside the front of the TSBD.
Williams is up on the 6th floor having his lunch.
Seven minutes before this, at 12:15 pm, Arnold Rowland reports seeing a black male in the SN window at a time when Williams is having his lunch on the 6th floor. Rowland also reports seeing a white male carrying a high powered, scoped rifle on the same floor at the same time.
According to all this testimonial evidence it is safe to say Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Do you have any credible counter-evidence?
Do you disagree with this assessment of the testimonial evidence?
?? But he wasn't "reluctant" to lie to the DPD and FBI??
Are you joking? You think lying to law enforcement agencies investigating the assassination of the president is somehow plausible for a black man in the 1960's South?
For the third time - he doesn't leave information out of his initial DPD statement, it isn't an omission or forgetfulness.
For the third time - Williams gives details of something that didn't happen. He lies. There is no other word for it.
He states he went up to the 5th floor with Jarman and Norman. He embellishes on this lie when he says that shortly after they reached the 5th floor the motorcade arrived.
None of this is true. He's made it up. He's created a false narrative. He has deliberately lied.
Your unreasonableness over this point is noted. I've no doubt you will keep on repeating the same point.
Again, this truly bizarre suggestion.
If he saw nothing why would he lie?
Think about it.
Utterly meaningless.
Your post is really weak and I don't think you should be taking on an issue like this if you are as unfamiliar with the witness testimony as you appear to be (although I strongly suspect you are more than familiar with the relevant evidence).
If you have a different (reasonable) interpretation of the evidence I've presented let's hear it.
Your last recourse is to simply classify me as one of the many nut-jobs plying their trade on this forum and walk away from this discussion. I advise this course of action.
You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever. None. You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates. You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation. Which itself makes no sense. Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking? So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"? He didn't see anything. What now? You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative. You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions. Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so.
-
You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever. None. You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates. You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation.
That's rich coming from the guy who has presented no credible evidence for his own desired interpretations.
-
No, I didn’t. I had no idea that the CIA paid its agents paid such a pittance. Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
Well, the “Stolen 2020 Election” is the most recent major Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory that I have heard about in the last few years. And millions seem to believe it. So, I think it is natural that I should refer to it when I refer to other such conspiracy theories, like the JFK assassination conspiracy theory.
How about Russian "collusion" in which the President of the United was alleged to have conspired with Putin to win the 2016 election? That one was a real lulu. That was a baseless "stolen election" conspiracy claim of the most epic proportions in American history. Gore alleged the 2000 election was stolen. JFK was alleged to have stolen the 1960 election. Stolen elections are a common political mantra.
-
Do you guys not get it? all these conspiracies are uniquely American, by that I mean, they are so steadfastly lingering and and profoundly unbelievable [to some] because you guys claim to stand for so much. But yet, your nation is just as crooked, thoroughly rotten -- as any nation you've been projecting upon for nearly the last century.
It's very hilarious watching Joe and Richard Smith pick and choose their conspiracy theories to line up behind. We are witnessing the extremely well predicted collapse of American society. I've been listening to JFK assassination researcher Mae Brussell's old recordings, she was just so right -- she predicted all this chaos USA is facing. No nation can survive whilst covering up and denying the truth. JFK, RFK, MLK, all of them were assassinated by orders of the same people that furthered the Vietnam until no more money could be sucked from war. Not until 9/11 happened, and they got another shot at bleeding the tax payers dry to fund the invasions that made trillions for the corporate and military Leviathan.
@Joe Elliot, are you really saying you don't know how the CIA gets around finances for its employees? I mean it's hardly a secret. Every single transaction has deniability built into it. I seem to remember James B Wilcott, the CIA accountant at Atsugi airbase testifying the agent would be assigned names/cryptonyms ... even double cryptonyms -- allegedly for Oswald. Then after 3 months, or maybe 6 months, the payments made through the CIA accounts to agents are audited and destroyed. Nothing remains open for investigation, just in case everything went tits up. It isn't so hard to imagine why we know so little about Oswald's finances. I mean, Biden is refusing RIGHT NOW in 2021 to release all the files. Get a clue
-
Let me ask you three questions, without any predetermination about what the answer would have to be to be acceptable (as you usually do);
And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.
Why don't you simply explain what you understand to be "the conspiracy"?
Are we talking about the planning and execution of the murder or about what happened after that or both?
Both, of course. Someone who planned or participated in the assassination, of course, should be counted. Someone who made or planted CE-399 should be counted. Someone who helped modify the Zapruder film should be counted.
Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
Do you think you know all there is to know about Oswald?
It is clear his family were economically poor. Much poorer than I would expect of a CIA agent.
What evidence was faked by the conspirators?
What exactly do you mean by evidence that was faked?
Like if you think CE-399 was planted. Like if you think the Zapruder film was faked. Like you think the autopsy report was modified to support only shots from the back.
Perhaps this a black or white issue for you, but do you - for example - think the Klein's order form for the rifle needs to be fake for Oswald not have ordered the rifle for himself?
I'm asking these questions for the purpose of clarification, because without the answers it's going to be difficult for me to enter into a discussion with you about this subject.
If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.
I think my intent is quite clear. You’re just pretending, perhaps even to yourself, that you don’t understand.
You’re just giving me the same kind of run-around a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” would be giving me.
“What do I mean “fake votes”? Real votes summitted by the same person multiple times? Or not real votes, they just modified the vote totals”.
I could not get any straight answers from a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” conspiracy theory, correct?
My intent is to find out basic information. Do you believe the JFK assassination was a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy or a small one? If a small one, what were the various “projects” done by the conspiracy, including fake evidence? And how many people were involved in each “project”?
By answering these questions, you would make it clear if you believe in a large or a small conspiracy.
-
Do you guys not get it? all these conspiracies are uniquely American, by that I mean, they are so steadfastly lingering and and profoundly unbelievable [to some] because you guys claim to stand for so much. But yet, your nation is just as crooked, thoroughly rotten -- as any nation you've been projecting upon for nearly the last century.
It's very hilarious watching Joe and Richard Smith pick and choose their conspiracy theories to line up behind. We are witnessing the extremely well predicted collapse of American society. I've been listening to JFK assassination researcher Mae Brussell's old recordings, she was just so right -- she predicted all this chaos USA is facing. No nation can survive whilst covering up and denying the truth. JFK, RFK, MLK, all of them were assassinated by orders of the same people that furthered the Vietnam until no more money could be sucked from war. Not until 9/11 happened, and they got another shot at bleeding the tax payers dry to fund the invasions that made trillions for the corporate and military Leviathan.
@Joe Elliot, are you really saying you don't know how the CIA gets around finances for its employees? I mean it's hardly a secret. Every single transaction has deniability built into it. I seem to remember James B Wilcott, the CIA accountant at Atsugi airbase testifying the agent would be assigned names/cryptonyms ... even double cryptonyms -- allegedly for Oswald. Then after 3 months, or maybe 6 months, the payments made through the CIA accounts to agents are audited and destroyed. Nothing remains open for investigation, just in case everything went tits up. It isn't so hard to imagine why we know so little about Oswald's finances. I mean, Biden is refusing RIGHT NOW in 2021 to release all the files. Get a clue
But what is the evidence for this in the case of Oswald. If it was true, wouldn’t we expect:
* Oswald owning a house that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Or renting a place that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Providing health care for family that he shouldn’t have been able to afford.
If any of this is true, what was Oswald spending the money on?
It would appear that this alleged income for Oswald was completely imaginary. Do you agree or disagree with this?
-
If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence.
Bull. False dichotomy. Maybe the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy (from microfilm that is now "missing") of a 2-inch order coupon was just wrong.
-
But what is the evidence for this in the case of Oswald. If it was true, wouldn’t we expect:
* Oswald owning a house that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Or renting a place that he shouldn’t have been able to afford. Providing health care for family that he shouldn’t have been able to afford.
Not unless he was a really incompetent undercover agent. Isn't the idea to not be conspicuous?
-
Not everyone who works WITH the CIA works FOR the CIA.
Oswald likely wasn't working for the CIA but he associated with several people who were working for the CIA. He was in a position to be wittingly or unwittingly used by the CIA.
-
Both, of course. Someone who planned or participated in the assassination, of course, should be counted. Someone who made or planted CE-399 should be counted. Someone who helped modify the Zapruder film should be counted.
It is clear his family were economically poor. Much poorer than I would expect of a CIA agent.
Like if you think CE-399 was planted. Like if you think the Zapruder film was faked. Like you think the autopsy report was modified to support only shots from the back.
If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.
I think my intent is quite clear. You’re just pretending, perhaps even to yourself, that you don’t understand.
You’re just giving me the same kind of run-around a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” would be giving me.
“What do I mean “fake votes”? Real votes summitted by the same person multiple times? Or not real votes, they just modified the vote totals”.
I could not get any straight answers from a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” conspiracy theory, correct?
My intent is to find out basic information. Do you believe the JFK assassination was a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy or a small one? If a small one, what were the various “projects” done by the conspiracy, including fake evidence? And how many people were involved in each “project”?
By answering these questions, you would make it clear if you believe in a large or a small conspiracy.
My question;
Let me ask you three questions, without any predetermination about what the answer would have to be to be acceptable (as you usually do);
And provide as estimate in the number involved in the conspiracy.
Why don't you simply explain what you understand to be "the conspiracy"?
Are we talking about the planning and execution of the murder or about what happened after that or both?
Your reply;
Both, of course. Someone who planned or participated in the assassination, of course, should be counted. Someone who made or planted CE-399 should be counted. Someone who helped modify the Zapruder film should be counted.
If you consider the planning and execution of the murder and what happened after that all one and the same conspiracy, you are in fact talking (perhaps on purpose) about the most unlikely conspiracy of them all, because it would indeed involve way too many people and way too much advance planning of every detail. In such a scenario you might just as well put an ad in the paper asking for people to join in. If there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy case, it would probably be far more sophisticated than that!
Just take the examples you are giving. There is no way the conspirators can plan ahead to modify the Zapruder film, when they don't even know a man named Zapruder would be filming the shooting. And how can you plan ahead to plant a bullet at Parkland without knowing for sure it would be found and linked to the Kennedy murder? You can't, unless you implicate Zapruder and Tomlinson as co-conspirators, which is absolutely idiotic.
So, this seems to be where we part ways already. If there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it consisted IMO in several parts; (1) the men who ordered the hit and stayed in the background, (2) the men who set up Oswald as a patsy, (3) the men who actually carried out the hit and, most importantly, (4) the men who controlled the evidence and had the means to cover things up.
My question;
Oswald couldn’t even support his family.
Do you think you know all there is to know about Oswald?
Your answer;
It is clear his family were economically poor. Much poorer than I would expect of a CIA agent.
Evasive and not the answer to my question. The honest answer would have to be that there is no way to know all there is to know about any person. What we know about Oswald is what the WC told us. There may have been things going on in Oswald's life that not even his wife or family knew about. Using a stereotype to dismiss possible scenarios is superficial.
My question;
What evidence was faked by the conspirators?
What exactly do you mean by evidence that was faked?
Perhaps this a black or white issue for you, but do you - for example - think the Klein's order form for the rifle needs to be fake for Oswald not have ordered the rifle for himself?
Your reply;
Like if you think CE-399 was planted. Like if you think the Zapruder film was faked. Like you think the autopsy report was modified to support only shots from the back.
If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.
Again, way too superficial, but exactly what I expected.
Let's get this out of the way first;
I do not think that the bullet now in evidence as CE-399 was planted. I don't believe that bullet was ever at Parkland Hospital to begin with and all indications are that it most certainly wasn't the bullet Tomlinson found.
I do not think that the Zapruder film is faked. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that it would have been virtually impossible to alter that film with the technology available back then and in the time frame available for it. What I can not rule out is that maybe some frames were removed.
In order to modify the autopsy report to support only shots from the back, there first had to have been one which said not all the shots came from the back. I know of no such report. As far as I am aware, the autopsy report has always said the shots came from the back. However, I also know that the findings in the report do not match what some of the men present at the autopsy saw.
If Oswald did not order the rifle than someone faked the evidence. Either the order form was forged or it is the order form used to order the rifle, but the person who actually ordered the rifle gave fake information to make it appear that it came from Oswald.
This is, IMO, where you go of the rails.
Let me give you a possible scenario in which Oswald did in fact write the order forms (for the rifle and the revolver) yet still did not order those weapons for himself. Now, let me be clear, I am not claiming this is what happened, I am merely suggesting it is a possibility.
If we assume that Oswald was being set up as a patsy for a still to be determined event, it is absolutely possible that somewhere in late 1962 / early 1963 he was introduced to a man calling himself Hidell. This man, after having gained Oswald's trust, tells him he wants to by a revolver and a rifle but - for example - he does not want his wife to know, so he asks Oswald if he can use his P.O. Box to receive the weapons. He then asks Oswald- under some pretence - if he could fill out the order forms for him. Perhaps he tells him he has injured his hand and can not write himself, or perhaps he simply says he doesn't know how to write because he is dyslexic. There are all sorts of possibilities....
The point I am trying to make is that you can not simply conclude that just because Oswald's handwriting is on the order form (if it actually is, as John Iacoletti has already pointed out) that he ordered the rifle and revolver for himself, using an alias, nor can you assume that just because the order form exists he did in fact receive those weapons.
I think my intent is quite clear. You’re just pretending, perhaps even to yourself, that you don’t understand.
Oh, but I did understand and yes, your intent is absolutely clear. You first build up the most unlikely preposterous conspiracy you can think off, involving thousands of people, which of course you then instantly dismiss as impossible and then you invite other people to argue against your dismissal and tell them in advance which answers you will not accept.
You’re just giving me the same kind of run-around a defender of the “Fake 2020 Election” would be giving me.
I don't believe there was a "Fake 2020 Election" conspiracy, so I am not going to comment on that. And I did not give you the run-around about the Kennedy case. I asked you three very specific questions to obtain answers which would tell me just how superficial your approach to the case is and it worked.
-
You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever. None. You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates. You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation. Which itself makes no sense. Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking? So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"? He didn't see anything. What now? You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative. You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions. Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so.
"You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever."
"Numerous random citizens"?
It might be enough to point out that the names I've listed are all male employees of the TSBD.
But there's more to it than that - other than James Jarman every single person who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
You call that random?
As for those who had foreknowledge of the assassination - what kind of evidence could there be? Secret recordings?
"You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates."
On the contrary, the evidence I've presented so far, the testimonies of Wiliiams, Norman, Jarman and Rowland, tell us something very specific - at 12:22 PM Norman and Jarman were out in front of the TSBD whilst, on the 6th floor, Williams was having his lunch at the same time a white male carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle was on the same floor.
I am well aware BRW gave varying estimates, I make a specific point about it - after owning up to being alone on the 6th floor, every time he is questioned about how long he was up there the estimates get longer and longer.
He starts of at 3 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 10, 12, 15 and, finally, 20 minutes.
BRW testifies that he was up on the 6th floor for 20 minutes, something corroborated by Jarman, Norman and Rowland.
"You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation. Which itself makes no sense."
This particular discussion started when you asked me why I believe there is some kind of conspiracy. I have presented just a small amount of evidence, so far, as to why I view things the way I do.
The quality of my interpretation of this evidence depends on the quality (and quantity) of evidence and how good (or not) my reasoning is. If my interpretation stands up to genuine scrutiny then it is sound but, so far, you've dismissively brushed it off because, I assume, it doesn't fit in with the interpretation you've been given.
"Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?"
I am making a point.
In fact, I'm making a few points but there are only two that need concern us here -
1) Other than Danny Arce, everyone who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day.
2) BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Presenting large amounts of self-corroborating evidence that indicates a specific interpretation isn't "pedantic nitpicking".
It's being thorough.
"So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"? He didn't see anything."
Again with this crazy argument.
We've been over this a number of times - if he didn't see anything he wouldn't be lying to the DPD and FBI.
End of story.
Also, it's not just a question of BRW being on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin, something the testimonial evidence abundantly demonstrates.
The testimonies of the first officers to see the SN - Mooney, Brewer, Haygood, Hill, Craig - place BRW's lunch remains in/on the SN. Montgomery, who came slightly later, describes the same.
Along with Rowland's testimony, the evidence indicates Williams was actually in the SN while he was having his lunch.
"You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative. You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions."
Bonnie Ray Williams - "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior."
Hank Norman - "I went to the fifth floor...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman...went with me."
Junior Jarman - "After eating lunch, Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor"
All three men telling exactly the same lie.
Williams went up to the 6th floor alone. He joined Norman and Jarman on the fifth after having stayed up there for at least 20 minutes. They did not go up to the 5th floor together. It's a lie.
There is no reason for Norman and Jarman to tell this lie. The only person this lie affects is Williams, it takes him away from the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman are lying to cover for Williams.
If you have any "perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions" let's hear them.
"Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so."
Just denying the evidence over and over again doesn't make it go away.
-
"You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever."
"Numerous random citizens"?
It might be enough to point out that the names I've listed are all male employees of the TSBD.
But there's more to it than that - other than James Jarman every single person who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
You call that random?
As for those who had foreknowledge of the assassination - what kind of evidence could there be? Secret recordings?
"You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates."
On the contrary, the evidence I've presented so far, the testimonies of Wiliiams, Norman, Jarman and Rowland, tell us something very specific - at 12:22 PM Norman and Jarman were out in front of the TSBD whilst, on the 6th floor, Williams was having his lunch at the same time a white male carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle was on the same floor.
I am well aware BRW gave varying estimates, I make a specific point about it - after owning up to being alone on the 6th floor, every time he is questioned about how long he was up there the estimates get longer and longer.
He starts of at 3 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 10, 12, 15 and, finally, 20 minutes.
BRW testifies that he was up on the 6th floor for 20 minutes, something corroborated by Jarman, Norman and Rowland.
"You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation. Which itself makes no sense."
This particular discussion started when you asked me why I believe there is some kind of conspiracy. I have presented just a small amount of evidence, so far, as to why I view things the way I do.
The quality of my interpretation of this evidence depends on the quality (and quantity) of evidence and how good (or not) my reasoning is. If my interpretation stands up to genuine scrutiny then it is sound but, so far, you've dismissively brushed it off because, I assume, it doesn't fit in with the interpretation you've been given.
"Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?"
I am making a point.
In fact, I'm making a few points but there are only two that need concern us here -
1) Other than Danny Arce, everyone who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day.
2) BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Presenting large amounts of self-corroborating evidence that indicates a specific interpretation isn't "pedantic nitpicking".
It's being thorough.
"So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"? He didn't see anything."
Again with this crazy argument.
We've been over this a number of times - if he didn't see anything he wouldn't be lying to the DPD and FBI.
End of story.
Also, it's not just a question of BRW being on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin, something the testimonial evidence abundantly demonstrates.
The testimonies of the first officers to see the SN - Mooney, Brewer, Haygood, Hill, Craig - place BRW's lunch remains in/on the SN. Montgomery, who came slightly later, describes the same.
Along with Rowland's testimony, the evidence indicates Williams was actually in the SN while he was having his lunch.
"You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative. You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions."
Bonnie Ray Williams - "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior."
Hank Norman - "I went to the fifth floor...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman...went with me."
Junior Jarman - "After eating lunch, Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor"
All three men telling exactly the same lie.
Williams went up to the 6th floor alone. He joined Norman and Jarman on the fifth after having stayed up there for at least 20 minutes. They did not go up to the 5th floor together. It's a lie.
There is no reason for Norman and Jarman to tell this lie. The only person this lie affects is Williams, it takes him away from the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman are lying to cover for Williams.
If you have any "perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions" let's hear them.
"Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so."
Just denying the evidence over and over again doesn't make it go away.
I would like to hear your opinion on this, Dan
was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
How can we be sure that the assassination took place from the 6th floor?
Yes, the rifle was found there and three shells, but there is no conclusive evidence that shows the MC rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and a couple of shells are easily dropped, like Fritz in fact did.
I'm not claiming the shots did not come from the 6th floor, but I just wonder how we can be sure they did..
-
I would like to hear your opinion on this, Dan
was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
How can we be sure that the assassination took place from the 6th floor?
Yes, the rifle was found there and three shells, but there is no conclusive evidence that shows the MC rifle was actually fired on 11/22/63 and a couple of shells are easily dropped, like Fritz in fact did.
I'm not claiming the shots did not come from the 6th floor, but I just wonder how we can be sure they did..
Multiple witnesses seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor before and during the assassination is strong evidence. The DPD tapes show the TSBD was identified within a few minutes of the assassination, presumably from the likes of Brennan, Euins and Rowland.
Not all, but some of the TSBD employees in the building at the time were convinced the shots came from inside the building.
I agree, the shells were not photographed in their original positions. Tom Alyea reports Fritz picking them up and allowing him to film them and a bit later giving them to Studebaker to recreate the scene. But shells were witnessed there by the first officers at the SN, that's how the SN was initially identified.
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,
-
Multiple witnesses seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor before and during the assassination is strong evidence. The DPD tapes show the TSBD was identified within a few minutes of the assassination, presumably from the likes of Brennan, Euins and Rowland.
Not all, but some of the TSBD employees in the building at the time were convinced the shots came from inside the building.
I agree, the shells were not photographed in their original positions. Tom Alyea reports Fritz picking them up and allowing him to film them and a bit later giving them to Studebaker to recreate the scene. But shells were witnessed there by the first officers at the SN, that's how the SN was initially identified.
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,
I'm not so certain. Witness testimony is the least reliable evidence and seeing a man in a window, possibly with a rifle, does not automatically mean the shots came from there.
I wasn't suggesting that Fritz actually planted the shells. Obviously, if the 6th floor was staged as a crime scene, somebody must have placed the rifle and the shells there.
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,
First of all, that would depend on the actual position of the body at the moment they were hit and, secondly, it would equally consistent with shots from the Dal-Tex building.
What has always bothered me is that they never checked if the rifle was fired that day, nor did they ever test for powder residue on the window pane. I know they removed part of the window sill, but I have never seen any positive test results for that.
-
Besides, only Brennan and Euins ever claimed to see a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window.
-
I'm not so certain. Witness testimony is the least reliable evidence and seeing a man in a window, possibly with a rifle, does not automatically mean the shots came from there.
I wasn't suggesting that Fritz actually planted the shells. Obviously, if the 6th floor was staged as a crime scene, somebody must have placed the rifle and the shells there.
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,
First of all, that would depend on the actual position of the body at the moment they were hit and, secondly, it would equally consistent with shots from the Dal-Tex building.
What has always bothered me is that they never checked if the rifle was fired that day, nor did they ever test for powder residue on the window pane. I know they removed part of the window sill, but I have never seen any positive test results for that.
Brennan and Euins independently reported a man pointing a rifle in the direction of the President at the time of the shooting. The man was in the SE corner of the 6th floor.
Independent, corroborating evidence of exactly the same thing is quite strong in my book.
I agree, this doesn't automatically mean the man pointing the rifle at the President from the same window the shells were found at by the first officers to discover the SN is shooting at the President.
But I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone was innocently pointing a rifle from the SN window at the President at exactly the same time he was shot. But I'm sure there is one.
The shells were seen in situ by a those officers on the 6th floor at the time of the discovery of the SN. Found at the same window a man was seen pointing a rifle towards the President at the exact moment he was shot.
Rowland's report of a man with a high powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived is of interest. I understand just because there is a man on the 6th floor with a high powered rifle before the motorcade arrives it doesn't automatically mean this man took the shots or that he was even the man Brennan and Euins reported. It is quite possible there were a few men wandering around the 6th floor with rifles that day.
But, rather than treat every detail as an isolated event, I have a tendency to try to pull all the details together into a narrative, and the man Rowland spotted would certainly be the same man Brennan and Euins reported. The numerous witness reports of seeing a rifle poking out of the SN window at the time of the assassination would also feed into that narrative.
Did three witnesses incorrectly describe a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
I don't think so.
Witness testimony may be weak but I don't think that applies in this case.
It is a fact three clearly audible shots rang out that day. Over 160 witnesses can't be wrong about that.
They had to come from somewhere.
There is definitely evidence they came from the TSBD.
My question is - what evidence is there that the shots came from the Dal-Tex or anywhere else?
-
The trajectory for the wounds sustained by JFK and JBC seem consistent with a shot from the general vicinity of the TSBD,
First of all, that would depend on the actual position of the body at the moment they were hit and, secondly, it would equally consistent with shots from the Dal-Tex building.
What has always bothered me is that they never checked if the rifle was fired that day, nor did they ever test for powder residue on the window pane. I know they removed part of the window sill, but I have never seen any positive test results for that.
"First of all, that would depend on the actual position of the body at the moment they were hit and, secondly, it would equally consistent with shots from the Dal-Tex building."
Of course, knowing the precise body position at the time of the shots can refine where the shots came from but I am convinced that even a non expert can come up with a general direction.
This would be consistent with the general direction of the TSBD and, as you say, the Dal-Tex.
Now this is where my "narrative" method comes into its own. Rather than just leave it at "it could be the TSBD or it could be the Dal-Tex, we can't be sure", my "narrative" method, rather than just treating this as an isolated detail, would look to other evidence to see if we can decide whether the trajectory of the shots was coming from the TSBD or the Dal-Tex.
So we could say something like - "Oh look, witnesses saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but nobody saw anybody pointing anything from the Dal-Tex."
In this scenario, the trajectory information would be used to strengthen the case for the shots coming from the TSBD. When the trajectory information is looked at in isolation it doesn't really tell us anything definitive. I strongly suspect this is the case for any piece of evidence.
"What has always bothered me is that they never checked if the rifle was fired that day, nor did they ever test for powder residue on the window pane. I know they removed part of the window sill, but I have never seen any positive test results for that."
Who would be the person who would make the call for immediately testing the rifle?
-
Brennan and Euins independently reported a man pointing a rifle in the direction of the President at the time of the shooting. The man was in the SE corner of the 6th floor.
Independent, corroborating evidence of exactly the same thing is quite strong in my book.
I agree, this doesn't automatically mean the man pointing the rifle at the President from the same window the shells were found at by the first officers to discover the SN is shooting at the President.
But I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone was innocently pointing a rifle from the SN window at the President at exactly the same time he was shot. But I'm sure there is one.
The shells were seen in situ by a those officers on the 6th floor at the time of the discovery of the SN. Found at the same window a man was seen pointing a rifle towards the President at the exact moment he was shot.
Rowland's report of a man with a high powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived is of interest. I understand just because there is a man on the 6th floor with a high powered rifle before the motorcade arrives it doesn't automatically mean this man took the shots or that he was even the man Brennan and Euins reported. It is quite possible there were a few men wandering around the 6th floor with rifles that day.
But, rather than treat every detail as an isolated event, I have a tendency to try to pull all the details together into a narrative, and the man Rowland spotted would certainly be the same man Brennan and Euins reported. The numerous witness reports of seeing a rifle poking out of the SN window at the time of the assassination would also feed into that narrative.
Did three witnesses incorrectly describe a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
I don't think so.
Witness testimony may be weak but I don't think that applies in this case.
It is a fact three clearly audible shots rang out that day. Over 160 witnesses can't be wrong about that.
They had to come from somewhere.
There is definitely evidence they came from the TSBD.
My question is - what evidence is there that the shots came from the Dal-Tex or anywhere else?
But I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone was innocently pointing a rifle from the SN window at the President at exactly the same time he was shot.
Agreed, if that's what happened.
It is a fact three clearly audible shots rang out that day. Over 160 witnesses can't be wrong about that.
You may be right, but it's a fallacious argument. An appeal to majority isn't always correct. Besides, if I remember correctly, there were also witnesses who claimed to have heard more shots, who were ignored or simply told they were wrong. Dealey Plaza is often described as an echo chamber.
The shells were seen in situ by a those officers on the 6th floor at the time of the discovery of the SN. Found at the same window a man was seen pointing a rifle towards the President at the exact moment he was shot.
Sounds convincing, I agree and yet I am not so confident this is was happened. The only person, if my memory serves, who actually claimed to see a man pointing a rifle when the shots rang out was Brennan and his account of what happened has not be consitent, to say the least. For one, he claimed to have looked up when the shots rang out, but there is photographic evidence that shows him looking at the motorcade. He also changed the position where he was sitting on the wall that day.
Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired.
Rowland's report of a man with a high powered, scoped rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived is of interest. I understand just because there is a man on the 6th floor with a high powered rifle before the motorcade arrives it doesn't automatically mean this man took the shots or that he was even the man Brennan and Euins reported.
Indeed.
It is quite possible there were a few men wandering around the 6th floor with rifles that day.
Possible? Maybe, but I doubt it.
But, rather than treat every detail as an isolated event, I have a tendency to try to pull all the details together into a narrative, and the man Rowland spotted would certainly be the same man Brennan and Euins reported.
There's nothing wrong about pulling details together into a narrative, if and when those details are conclusive and can be relied upon. I am sceptical about that.
The one thing that always seems to be overlooked is that all the information we work with has been filtered through the FBI and WC and was not presented to the public until nearly a year after the murder, leaving no possibility of independent corroboration. We have been spoon fed a narrative, which has shown itself to be superficial and often not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. That makes me wonder if we can rely on any of the details of that narrative.
"First of all, that would depend on the actual position of the body at the moment they were hit and, secondly, it would equally consistent with shots from the Dal-Tex building."
Of course, knowing the precise body position at the time of the shots can refine where the shots came from but I am convinced that even a non expert can come up with a general direction.
This would be consistent with the general direction of the TSBD and, as you say, the Dal-Tex.
Now this is where my "narrative" method comes into its own. Rather than just leave it at "it could be the TSBD or it could be the Dal-Tex, we can't be sure", my "narrative" method, rather than just treating this as an isolated detail, would look to other evidence to see if we can decide whether the trajectory of the shots was coming from the TSBD or the Dal-Tex.
So we could say something like - "Oh look, witnesses saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but nobody saw anybody pointing anything from the Dal-Tex."
In this scenario, the trajectory information would be used to strengthen the case for the shots coming from the TSBD. When the trajectory information is looked at in isolation it doesn't really tell us anything definitive. I strongly suspect this is the case for any piece of evidence.
"What has always bothered me is that they never checked if the rifle was fired that day, nor did they ever test for powder residue on the window pane. I know they removed part of the window sill, but I have never seen any positive test results for that."
Who would be the person who would make the call for immediately testing the rifle?
my "narrative" method, rather than just treating this as an isolated detail, would look to other evidence to see if we can decide whether the trajectory of the shots was coming from the TSBD or the Dal-Tex.
So we could say something like - "Oh look, witnesses saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but nobody saw anybody pointing anything from the Dal-Tex."
In this scenario, the trajectory information would be used to strengthen the case for the shots coming from the TSBD.
You do understand this is circular logic, right?
Somebody saw a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle, so the trajectory of the shots must be coming from the TSBD.
As the trajectory of the shots came from the TSBD the witness must have seen a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle.
When the trajectory information is looked at in isolation it doesn't really tell us anything definitive. I strongly suspect this is the case for any piece of evidence.
True. But when you start combining pieces of evidence into a narrative, you want to be sure the individual pieces are authentic, credible and can withstand scrutiny. I don't see that here.
Who would be the person who would make the call for immediately testing the rifle?
That would be Day or Studebaker, I imagine. But I am not sure what you mean by testing. I am told that when a rifle is fired, the bullet clears away any debris in the barrel, so it seems to me that it could be easily verified if there was debris in the barrel or not. Also, and I am no expert on this, it seems to me one would smell power fumes.
If the murder of Kennedy was a conspiracy, there are various ways (one more risky than the other) to get the rifle and shells in situ without there ever having been a shot fired from the TSBD. Let me give you one scenario. In the moments directly after the shots there was absolute mayhem and confusion.
Dorothy Garner told Barry Ernest;
"It was total confusion," she said. "The Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service were coming up the stairs, in the elevators, in all the
offices. The news media and workers and outsiders were going everywhere."
Now, let's say, as a hypothesis, one of the first men into the building was part of the conspiracy and it was his job to take the rifle from it's original hiding place (where it was possibly left during the night prior of the murder) and plant it, as well as three shells, on the 6th floor. If I remember correctly, the sniper's nest wasn't found instantly, so there would have been plenty of time and opportunity to actually plant those items while pretending to be looking.
You may call it far-fetched but I don't think it is and I can tell you why. If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go? I am convinced by now that the "Oswald on the stairs" story is not plausible or credible, predominantly because Dorothy Garner would have seen him, or anybody else, coming down on the stairs from the 5th floor and she didn't. The WC did their best to put Oswald on the stairs anyway, but they did so by dismissing the account of Victoria Adams, not interviewing the other girls and ignoring Garner's comment to Martha Stroud. In fact, the whole thing was circular logic at it's best; Oswald was the shooter and Baker saw him 90 seconds after the shots in the 2nd floor lunchroom, so he must have come down the stairs.
The rifle and shells being planted during the first minutes of the chaos would explain why no shooter was ever found on the 6th floor. I know, the hypothesis does not match the accepted narrative in any shape or form, but, looking beyond the narrative, it is a possibility nevertheless. Of course, there is no evidence for it, but there also isn't any evidence for Oswald having been on the 6th floor and running down the stairs at around 12:30.
-
. . .
So, this seems to be where we part ways already. If there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it consisted IMO in several parts; (1) the men who ordered the hit and stayed in the background, (2) the men who set up Oswald as a patsy, (3) the men who actually carried out the hit and, most importantly, (4) the men who controlled the evidence and had the means to cover things up.
Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:
* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.
And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.
Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:
* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory
All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.
It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.
You have not done this.
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.
. . .
Let's get this out of the way first;
I do not think that the bullet now in evidence as CE-399 was planted. I don't believe that bullet was ever at Parkland Hospital to begin with and all indications are that it most certainly wasn't the bullet Tomlinson found.
How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?
I do not think that the Zapruder film is faked. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that it would have been virtually impossible to alter that film with the technology available back then and in the time frame available for it. What I can not rule out is that maybe some frames were removed.
I can rule that out.
When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.
So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
another 10 inches
z 142:
another 10 inches
z 143:
another 10 inches
z 144:
Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
20 inches
z 142:
10 inches
z 143:
There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.
I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.
It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.
-
Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:
* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.
And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.
Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:
* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory
All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.
It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.
You have not done this.
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.
How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?
I can rule that out.
When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.
So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
another 10 inches
z 142:
another 10 inches
z 143:
another 10 inches
z 144:
Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
20 inches
z 142:
10 inches
z 143:
There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.
I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.
It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.
The contrarian approach is to imply that any evidence against Oswald is faked, planted, or the product of bad luck on his part (e.g. being the only employee to leave his prints on the SN boxes because "he worked there") but then deny that they are suggesting a widespread conspiracy to explain the evidence due to the logical inconsistency of those claims. Having their cake and eating it too. It is just a lazy way to extend the discussion. Going down the same rabbit holes over and over. The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming. It comes from a wide variety of different sources including many random citizens that he encountered that day. It is inconceivable that all this evidence was faked and that so many private citizens could be coerced and trusted by the conspirators to lie in the investigation of the murder of the President and remain silent forever.
-
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.
BS:
-
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?
What makes you think it's "Oswald's rifle"?
How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit?
That doesn't "appear likely".
-
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.
Hi Joe, I know this is a discussion you're having with Martin but I'd just like to quickly jump in as, whether you know it or not, you are completely misrepresenting some of the points I've been making.
"Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names."
In Reply #37 of this thread you made exactly the same point, implying that I'm not quite sure as to how many people I believe were involved in my own theory. I clarified this point for you when I replied:
"The list of four - Truly, Shelley, Fritz and Dougherty - are those who had foreknowledge of events that day.
The list of seven - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Dougherty, Givens - are those who clearly lied to the investigating authorities. Williams, Norman and Jarman did not lie because they were part of the conspiracy they lied because Williams saw something he shouldn't have seen. Williams tried to distance himself from it and dragged Norman and Jarman into his lie as back up."
4 men who had foreknowledge of the assassination that day.
7 men who lied to the investigating authorities.
You shouldn't have been confused in the first place, it just revealed you hadn't read my posts properly but posting this again, after I'd already clarified it for you, smacks of something more than just basic confusion.
"But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument."
Again, this shows you have not read my posts on this subject yet you feel you can comment on them. When I first laid out my basic theory I also laid out what I believe to be it's greatest flaw. A flaw I described as "insurmountable":
"The biggest stumbling block to this way of looking at things - and at the moment it looks insurmountable - is the organisation of the motorcade route.
I don't have the first clue how something like this could've possibly taken place through Byrd and his Oil buddies."
It is important to be honest with yourself when trying to propose a theory. I gladly welcome reasoned scrutiny and compelling counter-arguments. It is also important that I lay out the flaws with any theory I'm proposing as I have done with this one. As far as I'm aware it is a completely unique approach on this forum.
"For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get a hold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?"
Again, you have clearly not read my posts on this subject. When outlining my theory I wrote:
"Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run."
Oswald was involved in something that day but I don't believe he knew it was going to be the assassination of the President. And why should he know when he is being set-up as a patsy.
He is a foot soldier, taking orders, most probably answering to Shelley.
He wouldn't have been asked to provide a rifle, he would have been told to provide one.
"How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit?"
If you aware of my posts on this subject you would know I favour a scenario in which Oswald killed Tippit.
He was a man on the run and he was armed.
"In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small."
Most CTers are nut-jobs propping up their tiny egos at the expense of the truth.
Unfortunately, I'm getting the creeping feeling some LNers are in the same camp.
-
Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:
* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.
And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.
Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:
* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory
All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.
It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.
You have not done this.
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.
How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?
I can rule that out.
When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.
So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
another 10 inches
z 142:
another 10 inches
z 143:
another 10 inches
z 144:
Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
20 inches
z 142:
10 inches
z 143:
There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.
I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.
It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.
----------------
It was Oswald
All four of him
----------------
1) The little scumbag himself
2) Alek Hidell
3) O.H. Lee
4) Dirty Harvey
In the meantime:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pVsLD0mQ/whatwhat-update.png)
-
Well, that sounds like a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy to murder JFK and make it look like it was Oswald alone. To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished:
* Set up the murder of JFK.
* Set up the murder of Officer Tippit.
* Create CE-399 and swap it out.
* Remove frames from the Zapruder film.
Etc.
And an estimate of the number of people needed to accomplish all this. And what positions these people held, as Dallas Policemen, FBI agents, doctors, etc.
Anyone who presents a secret conspiracy theory has to make a case that they are arguing for a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory, and not for a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. They one thing that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theorists all have in common is that they skip this step. The:
* Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory
* Illuminati Conspiracy Theory
* Fake Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory
* JFK Conspiracy Theory
* Stolen 2020 Election Conspiracy Theory
All have this in common with each other. Skeptics have rejected all these conspiracy theories for over two hundred years, using the same solid reasoning. That keeping a large conspiracy a secret for years is way too remotely unlikely to be considered seriously.
It is incumbent on a conspiracy theorist to argue clearly that their conspiracy theory does not belong on this list.
You have not done this.
Only Dan O’meara has attempted this. Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names. But provides no information on obvious flaws in his argument. For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it? How did they make it appear that Oswald likely murdered Officer Tippit? In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small.
How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?
I can rule that out.
When the limousine is moving at 8 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 8 inches. When moving at 13 mph, it advances down the road, with each frame interval, about 13 inches. With maximum acceleration, or maximum braking, the limousine can only change it’s speed by about 0.5 or perhaps 1 mph within one frame interval. To change it’s speed by 1 mph within one Zapruder frame interval would require almost one G of force which I am confident is the maximum that limousine could do without running into a thick brick wall.
So, if the limousine was cruising along at 10 mph, you would see the limousine advance down the road by:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
another 10 inches
z 142:
another 10 inches
z 143:
another 10 inches
z 144:
Remove a single frame and you instead see the limousine advance:
z 140:
10 inches
z 141:
20 inches
z 142:
10 inches
z 143:
There would appear to be an interval where the limousine seemed to, miraculously accelerate from 10 mph to 20 mph and then just as abruptly slow to 10 mph. An amount of acceleration or deceleration requiring about 8 Gs of force. Absolutely impossible for the limousine to achieve.
I have carefully looked at many Zapruder frames and have found nothing like that. I have not checked every frame interval but that is the burden of those who support the “Zapruder frame removal” theory, not mine.
It is amazing to me that after over 50 years, CTers still commonly assert that maybe a Zapruder fame could have been removed. If that was so, it would be easy to demonstrate that. I suspect that 100 years after the assassination, CTers will still continue to assert this.
To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished
With all due respect, Joe, you are basically asking me to write a book. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything as it would require substantial effort and time on my part and our previous encounters have shown that it is near impossible to convince you of anything anyway. Besides, I wouldn't even know how to begin convincing you, or anybody, else when I loads of questions myself about what actually happened.
But I would be interested in learning from you why you believe the murder of Tippit was pre-planned?
And what makes you think anything to do with CE399 was pre-planned?
if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get ahold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?
What makes you so sure that the rifle found at the TSBD was actually ever owned by Oswald?
How many men looked at the original bullet found at Parkland before CE-399 was swapped in? How many could have made a photograph of this original bullet. How many would have to keep silent about this?
There were three men in Parkland who handled the bullet; Tomlinson, who found it, Wright, who received it from Tomlinson, and SA Johnsen who put it in his pocket and took it to Washington. The chances that anybody would have made a photograph of that bullet are nil. I'm not even sure why you would bring it up, as no photograph has ever surfaced and the whole notion is so far fetched, because who would even come up with idea to photograph that bullet. The bullet was found in a restricted area, guarded by law enforcement officers and, when he found it, Tomlinson instantly went to Wright, who kept it on his person until he could find an agent who would take it, which in this case was Johnson.
And nobody would have to keep silent about this, because none of the men saw the bullet again and none of them had any reason to assume a swap had taken place.
Remarkably, however, one of the three men did not remain silent. In an interview in 1966, O.P. Wright told Jeremiah Thompson that the bullet he had seen had a pointed tip. During a follow up interview in 1967, Wright was shown photographs of CE399, CE572 and CE606 and he rejected them all as resembling the bullet he received from Tomlinson. Even more remarkably, when the WC took testimony from Tomlinson, they failed to show him CE399 for identification. Now why was that, do you think?
-
But I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which someone was innocently pointing a rifle from the SN window at the President at exactly the same time he was shot.
Agreed, if that's what happened.
It is a fact three clearly audible shots rang out that day. Over 160 witnesses can't be wrong about that.
You may be right, but it's a fallacious argument. An appeal to majority isn't always correct. Besides, if I remember correctly, there were also witnesses who claimed to have heard more shots, who were ignored or simply told they were wrong. Dealey Plaza is often described as an echo chamber.
According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.
The shells were seen in situ by a those officers on the 6th floor at the time of the discovery of the SN. Found at the same window a man was seen pointing a rifle towards the President at the exact moment he was shot.
Sounds convincing, I agree and yet I am not so confident this is was happened. The only person, if my memory serves, who actually claimed to see a man pointing a rifle when the shots rang out was Brennan and his account of what happened has not be consitent, to say the least. For one, he claimed to have looked up when the shots rang out, but there is photographic evidence that shows him looking at the motorcade. He also changed the position where he was sitting on the wall that day.
Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired.
I'm a bit confused here. I described the discovery of the shells by the first officers at the SN but you counter it by dismissing Brennan and Euins.
This brings me to another point, both Brennan and Euins describe a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting. It is independently corroborating evidence of a very specific point. You dismiss it by individually implying Brennan is a flake and Euins is just a kid, so the fact they both independently described a man pointing a rifle towards the President from the TSBD at the moment of the shooting miraculously disappears. I'm not convinced by this approach.
my "narrative" method, rather than just treating this as an isolated detail, would look to other evidence to see if we can decide whether the trajectory of the shots was coming from the TSBD or the Dal-Tex.
So we could say something like - "Oh look, witnesses saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD but nobody saw anybody pointing anything from the Dal-Tex."
In this scenario, the trajectory information would be used to strengthen the case for the shots coming from the TSBD.
You do understand this is circular logic, right?
Somebody saw a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle, so the trajectory of the shots must be coming from the TSBD.
As the trajectory of the shots came from the TSBD the witness must have seen a man in the window of the TSBD with a rifle.
You've misunderstood my meaning.
In the example I gave, the bullet trajectory can be traced to a general area including the TSBD and the Dal-Tex. So how do we choose between these two locations? My solution is to look at other evidence, such as witnesses seeing a man in the TSBD pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the window where three shells were found.
On the other hand, no-one saw anyone pointing anything at anyone from the Dal-Tex and no shells were found there.
In this scenario the trajectory information favours the TSBD as the location from which the assassin fired.
If the murder of Kennedy was a conspiracy, there are various ways (one more risky than the other) to get the rifle and shells in situ without there ever having been a shot fired from the TSBD. Let me give you one scenario. In the moments directly after the shots there was absolute mayhem and confusion.
Dorothy Garner told Barry Ernest;
"It was total confusion," she said. "The Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service were coming up the stairs, in the elevators, in all the
offices. The news media and workers and outsiders were going everywhere."
Now, let's say, as a hypothesis, one of the first men into the building was part of the conspiracy and it was his job to take the rifle from it's original hiding place (where it was possibly left during the night prior of the murder) and plant it, as well as three shells, on the 6th floor. If I remember correctly, the sniper's nest wasn't found instantly, so there would have been plenty of time and opportunity to actually plant those items while pretending to be looking.
You may call it far-fetched but I don't think it is and I can tell you why. If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go? I am convinced by now that the "Oswald on the stairs" story is not plausible or credible, predominantly because Dorothy Garner would have seen him, or anybody else, coming down on the stairs from the 5th floor and she didn't. The WC did their best to put Oswald on the stairs anyway, but they did so by dismissing the account of Victoria Adams, not interviewing the other girls and ignoring Garner's comment to Martha Stroud. In fact, the whole thing was circular logic at it's best; Oswald was the shooter and Baker saw him 90 seconds after the shots in the 2nd floor lunchroom, so he must have come down the stairs.
The rifle and shells being planted during the first minutes of the chaos would explain why no shooter was ever found on the 6th floor. I know, the hypothesis does not match the accepted narrative in any shape or form, but, looking beyond the narrative, it is a possibility nevertheless. Of course, there is no evidence for it, but there also isn't any evidence for Oswald having been on the 6th floor and running down the stairs at around 12:30.
"If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go?"
This seems to be a key point underpinning your proposed scenario. In the model I'm proposing the shooter is Jack Dougherty. He stays on the 6th floor until Truly, a co-conspirator, has steered Baker up to the roof, avoiding the 6th floor. Dougherty is then seen on the 5th floor going about his business.
There is no need for anything as complex as the scenario you are proposing.
-
According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.
Unfortunately, not much can be considered a fact in this case.
I'm a bit confused here. I described the discovery of the shells by the first officers at the SN but you counter it by dismissing Brennan and Euins.
This brings me to another point, both Brennan and Euins describe a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting. It is independently corroborating evidence of a very specific point. You dismiss it by individually implying Brennan is a flake and Euins is just a kid, so the fact they both independently described a man pointing a rifle towards the President from the TSBD at the moment of the shooting miraculously disappears. I'm not convinced by this approach.
About the shells being seen in situ by officers when the sniper's nest was discovered, there isn't much for me to say. You are basically stating a fact. Of course there will be people who saw the shells in situ, because they were there at some point in time. Far more interesting for me would be how and when they got there. You refered to the same window where a man was seen pointing a rifle. IMO you could only have been talking about Brennan, because I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall. And btw I am not dismissing Brennan or Euins. I'm just pointing out that you can not always take everything a witness says at face value.
Brennan simply might not be a credible witness for known reasons an the Euins told different stories as well. In his testimony he said he saw a pipe, in a TV interview he said nothing about that pipe but instead said that he ducked behind a wall as soon as he heard the shots. In yet another interview he said he brought a camera and actually took pictures of the TSBD but somehow the camera disappeared and he could not explain how. Is their testimony invalid? No, but it isn't rock solid either.
You've misunderstood my meaning.
In the example I gave, the bullet trajectory can be traced to a general area including the TSBD and the Dal-Tex. So how do we choose between these two locations? My solution is to look at other evidence, such as witnesses seeing a man in the TSBD pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the window where three shells were found.
On the other hand, no-one saw anyone pointing anything at anyone from the Dal-Tex and no shells were found there.
In this scenario the trajectory information favours the TSBD as the location from which the assassin fired.
All your conclusions about where the shots came from seems to hang, for the biggest part, on the statements of Brennan and Euins and the shells being found at the sniper's nest. Was the Dal-Tex building ever searched? If this was a professional hit, which in a conspiracy against POTUS it most likely would have to, misdirection might play a big part. What if the man Brennan and Euins saw in the window was there for exactly that purpose and left the 6th floor as soon as the motorcade turned onto Houston. That would explain why nobody was found on the 6th floor or seen on the stairs, wouldn't it?
I've said this before; all we really know has been filtered by the FBI and WC. We have no way of knowing if the information is accurate or complete. The less confident I get about the WC findings, the more likely it seems to me that we do not know everything. What if the 6th floor crime scene was staged? What would that leave you with? Two witnesses out of several hundered people who, over time, gave different accounts about what happened. And that, to me, seems a bit thin to base a string of conclusions on.
"If there was a shooter on the 6th floor, then where did he go?"
This seems to be a key point underpinning your proposed scenario. In the model I'm proposing the shooter is Jack Dougherty. He stays on the 6th floor until Truly, a co-conspirator, has steered Baker up to the roof, avoiding the 6th floor. Dougherty is then seen on the 5th floor going about his business.
There is no need for anything as complex as the scenario you are proposing.
Right, so Dougherty would basically be hiding in plain sight? It certainly would explain why Dorothy Garner saw nobody coming down the stairs within 90 seconds after the shots and it can't be dismissed as a possibility. Having said that, the scenario I proposed is in many ways not really much different. All you need is a conspirator, acting as a law enforcement officer or maybe even being one, running up to the 6th floor, leaving the rifle next to the stairs and throwning three shells in the pre-prepared "sniper's nest". There is nothing complex about that.
-
According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
However, I should not have described it as a "fact" that there were 3 clearly audible shots, it is not.
Unfortunately, not much can be considered a fact in this case.
Agreed. That is why I think theories/models/narratives are important.
There is so much that is contradictory and misleading in this case that it will be impossible to come up with a model that doesn't have holes in it (the LNer model included). The model that has the least holes wins. That, I believe, is the best we can do.
About the shells being seen in situ by officers when the sniper's nest was discovered, there isn't much for me to say. You are basically stating a fact. Of course there will be people who saw the shells in situ, because they were there at some point in time. Far more interesting for me would be how and when they got there. You refered to the same window where a man was seen pointing a rifle. IMO you could only have been talking about Brennan, because I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall. And btw I am not dismissing Brennan or Euins. I'm just pointing out that you can not always take everything a witness says at face value.
Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.
As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.
Brennan simply might not be a credible witness for known reasons an the Euins told different stories as well. In his testimony he said he saw a pipe, in a TV interview he said nothing about that pipe but instead said that he ducked behind a wall as soon as he heard the shots. In yet another interview he said he brought a camera and actually took pictures of the TSBD but somehow the camera disappeared and he could not explain how. Is their testimony invalid? No, but it isn't rock solid either.
The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.
All your conclusions about where the shots came from seems to hang, for the biggest part, on the statements of Brennan and Euins and the shells being found at the sniper's nest. Was the Dal-Tex building ever searched? If this was a professional hit, which in a conspiracy against POTUS it most likely would have to, misdirection might play a big part. What if the man Brennan and Euins saw in the window was there for exactly that purpose and left the 6th floor as soon as the motorcade turned onto Houston. That would explain why nobody was found on the 6th floor or seen on the stairs, wouldn't it?
I disagree that it was a professional hit.
As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).
I've said this before; all we really know had been filtered by the FBI and WC. We have no way of knowing if the information is accurate or complete. The less confident I get about the WC findings, the more likely it seems to me that we do not know everything. What if the 6th floor crime scene was staged? What would that leave you with? Two witnesses out of several hundered people who, over time, gave different accounts about what happened. And that, to me, seems a bit thin to base a string of conclusions on.
It would be a bit thin if that's all it was.
Rowland reports seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther saw a man pointing a rifle of of a TSBD window but she wasn't sure which window.
Ronald Fischer saw a man in the 6th floor window but didn't see the rifle.
Robert Edwards saw the same man in the SN window surrounded by boxes.
Mrs Earle Cabell, Malcolm Couch, James Worrell and Bob Jackson describe a rifle projecting out from a TSBD window (Cabell describes it as a projection)
Some TSBD employees report the shots as coming from inside the building.
As discussed, three shells were seen by the first officers to discover the SN.
The bullet/wound trajectories are consistent with a shot from the TSBD
The majority of witnesses in the motorcade describe the shots as coming from over their right shoulders - also consistent with a shot from the TSBD.
The DPD tapes reveal witnesses identifying the TSBD within a few minutes of the assassination.
I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.
Right, so Dougherty would basically be hiding in plain sight? It certainly would explain why Dorothy Garner saw nobody coming down the stairs within 90 seconds after the shots and it can't be dismissed as a possibility. Having said that, the scenario I proposed is in many ways not really much different. All you need is a conspirator, acting as a law enforcement officer or maybe even being one, running up to the 6th floor, leaving the rifle next to the stairs and throwning three shells in the pre-prepared "sniper's nest". There is nothing complex about that.
Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.
-
Agreed. That is why I think theories/models/narratives are important.
There is so much that is contradictory and misleading in this case that it will be impossible to come up with a model that doesn't have holes in it (the LNer model included). The model that has the least holes wins. That, I believe, is the best we can do.
Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.
As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.
The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.
I disagree that it was a professional hit.
As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).
It would be a bit thin if that's all it was.
Rowland reports seeing a man with a rifle on the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther saw a man pointing a rifle of of a TSBD window but she wasn't sure which window.
Ronald Fischer saw a man in the 6th floor window but didn't see the rifle.
Robert Edwards saw the same man in the SN window surrounded by boxes.
Mrs Earle Cabell, Malcolm Couch, James Worrell and Bob Jackson describe a rifle projecting out from a TSBD window (Cabell describes it as a projection)
Some TSBD employees report the shots as coming from inside the building.
As discussed, three shells were seen by the first officers to discover the SN.
The bullet/wound trajectories are consistent with a shot from the TSBD
The majority of witnesses in the motorcade describe the shots as coming from over their right shoulders - also consistent with a shot from the TSBD.
The DPD tapes reveal witnesses identifying the TSBD within a few minutes of the assassination.
I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.
Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.
Euins specifically testifies to seeing a man pointing a rifle out of the window. It must be remembered that Harkness radios in he has a witness (Euins) claiming the shooter was in the TSBD within a few minutes of the shooting. This makes Euins credible as far as I'm concerned.
Hang on, I never said Euins wasn't credible. I just wonder what he really saw, given the fact that he changed his story over time. It's pretty obvious that he instantly realized the shooter was inside the TSBD and told a cop. I deliberately use the word "realized" because concluding the shooter was inside the building is not the same as seeing a man with a rifle at a particular 6th floor window. I would have agreed with you that Euins was a witness that could be relied upon, if he had been more specific about the location inside the building to the officer.
As for the shells, if the three shots were fired from the window Brennan and Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the time of the shooting, then the shells came from the rifle - probably.
Whether they were the same shells Studebaker photographed is open to debate as there is good witness testimony that, at some point, all the original shells were in Fritz's pocket before they were photographed. Not to mention the one in the clip Fritz took away with him.
If the three shots were fired from that window, a logical and fair conclusion would indeed be that the shells they found probably came from the rifle. Fritz contaminating the crime scene is something I will never understand. He should have known better, even by the standard of that day. It seems to me there are way too many instances of strange things happening involving the physical evidence, that you simple can not put it all down to incompetence.
The key to the credibility of these witnesses is the DPD tapes. Whatever they said afterwards is one thing, but minutes after the shooting they were telling police officers about the man with the rifle (as was Rowland). These reports generated calls over the police radio.
And yet, the WC went with Brennan and Euins and did everything they could to discredit Rowland.
I disagree that it was a professional hit.
Well that settles that then, right? Btw I never suggested it was a profession hit. The word If at the beginning is the give away.
As for the man with the rifle being a decoy, we are now getting into "maybe Brennan and Euins were CIA assets" territory. This sort of conjecture the bread and butter of the lunatic fringe (I'm not placing you in this category, I'm just making a point).
I would never claim Brennan and Euins were CIA assets, but if you want the dismiss a possible suggestion just because you don't think it's likely or possible (which btw a lot of LNs frequently also do) that a decoy was used in a misdirection operation to draw attention away from the real shooters, than that's fine. You've already said that you don't think it was a professional hit, so this goes out of the window as well, right?
But here's something to ponder; what if Dougherty was in fact the decoy and not the shooter? Just think about for a second. He works there and if they test him he would come back negative on powder residue...
I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.
Fair enough. For me it certainly is a possibility as well, but I remain skeptical. Why would a gun man place himself on the 6th floor with only one way to escape? It hardly makes sense to me. IMO something else must have been going on.
Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.
Yes and no. He might be seen, but would he be noticed with all sorts of law enforcement people rushing into the building with rifles making their way to the higher up floors? A good way to hide, is in a crowd, isn't it? Btw you did notice it was a a hypothesis?
-
According to Pat Speer's comprehensive list of witnesses who reported on the shots over 75% of the 200+ witnesses reported 3 audible shots. Of course there were others who reported different amounts of shots but 160+ witnesses reporting the same thing is convincing enough for me.
These aren't independent accounts though. Most of these witnesses were interviewed weeks or months later -- long after the 3 shot narrative was firmly planted in the public psyche by Uncle Walter and others.
-
To convince me otherwise you have to provide a list of all the subtasks that was accomplished
With all due respect, Joe, you are basically asking me to write a book. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything as it would require substantial effort and time on my part and our previous encounters have shown that it is near impossible to convince you of anything anyway. Besides, I wouldn't even know how to begin convincing you, or anybody, else when I loads of questions myself about what actually happened.
It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy. You could do it with a short article. This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy. So, that means that you believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. One that is so large, one would have to write a whole book, just to list all the actions taken by the conspiracy:
* Making CE-399.
* Getting the right people on your side so you can swap in CE-399.
etc.
And coming up with an estimate of the number of people needed to pull this off.
You also did not address my point that simply removing a frame from the Zapruder film would make it appear the limousine suddenly double its speed and just as suddenly went back to it’s original speed, with an impossible amount of acceleration and deceleration.
Question:
Do you still think a Zapruder frame was removed from the film?
If so, where in the Zapruder film does the limousine appear to move twice it’s usual distance between two consecutive frames?
-
Hi Joe, I know this is a discussion you're having with Martin but I'd just like to quickly jump in as, whether you know it or not, you are completely misrepresenting some of the points I've been making.
Yes, I believe I have, inadvertently. At least regarding the oil companies. That was someone else who mentioned them.
"Sometimes he puts forth four names, At other times seven names."
In Reply #37 of this thread you made exactly the same point, implying that I'm not quite sure as to how many people I believe were involved in my own theory. I clarified this point for you when I replied:
"The list of four - Truly, Shelley, Fritz and Dougherty - are those who had foreknowledge of events that day.
The list of seven - Shelley, Lovelady, Williams, Norman, Jarman, Dougherty, Givens - are those who clearly lied to the investigating authorities. Williams, Norman and Jarman did not lie because they were part of the conspiracy they lied because Williams saw something he shouldn't have seen. Williams tried to distance himself from it and dragged Norman and Jarman into his lie as back up."
4 men who had foreknowledge of the assassination that day.
7 men who lied to the investigating authorities.
You shouldn't have been confused in the first place, it just revealed you hadn't read my posts properly but posting this again, after I'd already clarified it for you, smacks of something more than just basic confusion.
Four with foreknowledge. Plus, three others lying, as if they were part of the conspiracy. Ok, it’s a difference, but a subtle difference.
"For instance, if Oswald was not part of this conspiracy, how did these 4 or 7 get a hold of Oswald’s rifle to plant it?"
Again, you have clearly not read my posts on this subject. When outlining my theory I wrote:
"Oswald definitely knew something serious was going to happen that day but as to the full extent, I can't say. It's enough to say that when he left the TSBD after the assassination, he was a man on the run."
Oswald was involved in something that day but I don't believe he knew it was going to be the assassination of the President. And why should he know when he is being set-up as a patsy.
He is a foot soldier, taking orders, most probably answering to Shelley.
He wouldn't have been asked to provide a rifle, he would have been told to provide one.
Well, then, with this reasoning, one could argue the conspiracy did not involve four with foreknowledge. Just one, Shelley. And the other three, like Oswald, just doing what Shelley told them to do. Honestly, I don’t see any rational reason for leaving Oswald out of your “Gang of Four”. If he was told the provide a rifle and he did so then it is most logical to conclude that he was part of the conspiracy. I think you are still under the influence of the “Anyone but Oswald” line of thinking.
"In any case, the vast majority of JFK CTers don’t believe in a conspiracy that is this small."
Most CTers are nut-jobs propping up their tiny egos at the expense of the truth.
Unfortunately, I'm getting the creeping feeling some LNers are in the same camp.
Not nut jobs. Just believers in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory. Everyone is prone to believing in stories that appeal to some level of the subconscious. And large conspiracy stories are naturally compelling stories. Skeptics aren’t any less crazy than everyone else. They just allow themselves to be guided by logic, that Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories are astronomically unlikely. Too many people would spill the beans.
You are not a believer in Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories, as far as I can tell. But you are a very atypical CTer.
-
J. Edgar Hoover said in a memo two days after John F. Kennedy's assassination that the public must be led to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/jfk-files-j-edgar-hoover-said-public-must-believe-lee-n814881
And that is no theory. And as usual there is no response.
-
It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy. You could do it with a short article. This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy. So, that means that you believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. One that is so large, one would have to write a whole book, just to list all the actions taken by the conspiracy:
* Making CE-399.
* Getting the right people on your side so you can swap in CE-399.
etc.
And coming up with an estimate of the number of people needed to pull this off.
You also did not address my point that simply removing a frame from the Zapruder film would make it appear the limousine suddenly double its speed and just as suddenly went back to it’s original speed, with an impossible amount of acceleration and deceleration.
Question:
Do you still think a Zapruder frame was removed from the film?
If so, where in the Zapruder film does the limousine appear to move twice it’s usual distance between two consecutive frames?
You could do it with a short article.
That's only your opinion. I disagree
This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy.
Again, only your opinion. You are doing what you always do; predetermine the way somebody should respond to you. I don't play that game.
It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy.
Oh yes it would require a massive book, as there are way too many variables in this case that were never properly addressed. I could write a complete chapter alone about the rifle transaction, another one about CE399 and so on. I'm not about to do it, but if I did the result would indeed be a massive book.
And what makes you think I am defending any kind of conspiracy? It is simply my position that, if Oswald did not do it, the most likely conspiracy would be a small scale one with the means to control the evidence.
So, that means that you believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy.
No, it means that you are jumping to incorrect conclusions way too quickly.
* Making CE-399.
* Getting the right people on your side so you can swap in CE-399.
etc.
And coming up with an estimate of the number of people needed to pull this off.
Making CE399 is easy. Just fire a bullet with the MC rifle into water or cotton wool! And what makes you think you need a number of people to swap one bullet? SA Johnsen took the bullet he received from Wright to Washington, where he gave it to SS Chief Rowley. If I remember correctly, Rowley gave it to FBI agent Todd, who in turn passed it to Frazier at the FBI crime lab.
If no swap occured, then why did the WC not show bullet CE399 for identification to Tomlinson, during his testimony, and why did Wright say, in 1966, when shown a photograph of CE399 that it wasn't the (type of) bullet he had handled?
And when we look at the larger picture, consider this as well; Frazier and his team were supposed to examine the limo after it arrived in Washington. When the FBI team arrived at the Secret Service garage they were told that the car had already been searched (resulting in a contaminated crime scene) and they were given bullet fragments that allegedly were found inside the car. How can anyone know for sure those fragments were indeed found in the car?
And then there is the Walker bullet. Again we have a major inconsistency between how the bullet was described, prior to the assassination, and how the bullet now in evidence actually looks like. When General Walker saw the bullet the HSCA had been given he instantly claimed that the bullet now in evidence wasn't the one DPD removed from his house in April 1963. He was so convinced he was right that he got his lawyer involved, to communicate with the HSCA.
None of this has anything to do with a normal regular investigation. What we have here is a rifle that can only tentatively linked to Oswald, based on a photocopy of an order form and the highly questionable opinion of an FBI questioned documents expert. You got one bullet with no proper chain of custody until it gets to Washington, you've got bullet fragments given to the FBI who were told they came from the limo and you've got a highly disputed Walker bullet. And all that in a case of a lone nut shooting a man.... Really?
Anybody who ignores this and pretends there is nothing abnormal about this, doesn't want to know the real facts of the case. For those who are interested in the facts, all this just seems a bit too much coincidence to be credible. Even more so as we are talking about a high profile case.
You also did not address my point that simply removing a frame from the Zapruder film would make it appear the limousine suddenly double its speed and just as suddenly went back to it’s original speed, with an impossible amount of acceleration and deceleration.
Question:
Do you still think a Zapruder frame was removed from the film?
I have never said I thought a Zapruder frame was removed. I said that I am no expert but, yes, I still think it's possible one or more frames were removed.
-
Hang on, I never said Euins wasn't credible. I just wonder what he really saw, given the fact that he changed his story over time.
My bad. When you wrote:
"Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired."
...I definitely took it as though you were questioning his credibility as a witness. And again, when you posted:
"...I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall."
...I really got the very strong impression that you were totally trashing Euins as a witness for no particular reason. "Just Because" seemed to be good enough.
I see I was mistaken.
It's pretty obvious that he instantly realized the shooter was inside the TSBD and told a cop. I deliberately use the word "realized" because concluding the shooter was inside the building is not the same as seeing a man with a rifle at a particular 6th floor window. I would have agreed with you that Euins was a witness that could be relied upon, if he had been more specific about the location inside the building to the officer.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
You seem to be agreeing that Euins saw a shooter in the TSBD.
You seem to agree that he told Harkness almost immediately.
But Euins isn't credible because Harkness didn't state exactly what floor the shooter was on.
I don't get it.
What am I missing?
If the three shots were fired from that window, a logical and fair conclusion would indeed be that the shells they found probably came from the rifle. Fritz contaminating the crime scene is something I will never understand. He should have known better, even by the standard of that day. It seems to me there are way too many instances of strange things happening involving the physical evidence, that you simple can not put it all down to incompetence.
I agree that this is too incompetent to be just incompetence.
Alyea is freaked when Fritz does this and rightly so.
It was this action that first put Fritz on my radar as "a person of interest" as far as a conspiracy goes.
And yet, the WC went with Brennan and Euins and did everything they could to discredit Rowland.
Why would they discredit Rowland?
He should be a star witness, supporting Brennan and Euins and giving a specific time the assassin was in place.
One obviously massive problem was the black male in the SN window at the same time. At a time when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch. The remains of this lunch initially being discovered on top of the SN.
I disagree that it was a professional hit.
Well that settles that then, right? Btw I never suggested it was a profession hit. The word If at the beginning is the give away.
Fair enough.
I didn't really need to make that point.
I would never claim Brennan and Euins were CIA assets, but if you want the dismiss a possible suggestion just because you don't think it's likely or possible (which btw a lot of LNs frequently also do) that a decoy was used in a misdirection operation to draw attention away from the real shooters, than that's fine. You've already said that you don't think it was a professional hit, so this goes out of the window as well, right?
But here's something to ponder; what if Dougherty was in fact the decoy and not the shooter? Just think about for a second. He works there and if they test him he would come back negative on powder residue...
Again, fair enough. There's no harm in conjecture.
Dougherty as a decoy negates the need for someone running around with a rifle to plant.
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
Where are the three audible shots coming from?
I am unaware of any credible evidence the three clearly audible shots came from anywhere else. Although each point can be isolated and argued into the ground, for me, personally, I find the probability that the SN was the location from which the shots were taken enough to be taken very seriously.
Fair enough. For me it certainly is a possibility as well, but I remain skeptical. Why would a gun man place himself on the 6th floor with only one way to escape? It hardly makes sense to me. IMO something else must have been going on.
Would your conspirator not be seen by Adams or Styles or Baker or Garner or Williams/Jarman/Norman?
My proposal avoids this unnecessary complication.
Yes and no. He might be seen, but would he be noticed with all sorts of law enforcement people rushing into the building with rifles making their way to the higher up floors? A good way to hide, is in a crowd, isn't it? Btw you did notice it was a a hypothesis?
I understand it's a hypothesis. I'm just pointing out it's weaknesses.
-
My bad. When you wrote:
"Euins was an impressionable young kid back then, who ducked away behind a wall when he heard the shots. I seriously doubt he actually saw any shots being fired."
...I definitely took it as though you were questioning his credibility as a witness. And again, when you posted:
"...I don't believe Euins saw anything, at least not prior to the shooting, and when the shots were fired he ducked behind a wall."
...I really got the very strong impression that you were totally trashing Euins as a witness for no particular reason. "Just Because" seemed to be good enough.
I see I was mistaken.
No biggie.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
You seem to be agreeing that Euins saw a shooter in the TSBD.
You seem to agree that he told Harkness almost immediately.
But Euins isn't credible because Harkness didn't state exactly what floor the shooter was on.
I don't get it.
What am I missing?
Well, let me try to explain it this way. Euins is a witness to the assassination and I have no reason to assume he would intentionally lie. Having said that, I find it strange that he claims to have seen the gunman before and when he was firing, when he said in an interview that he actually ducked behind a wall when he heard the shots. Things get even stranger when he said in another interview that he brought a camera and had actually taken pictures of the TSBD but then somehow lost the camera and he didn't know what happened.
The biggest issue with Euins I have is that if he had seen somebody in the 6th floor window, he would have known exactly from where the shots came and could have told the police. He clearly didn't because it took them some time before the sniper's nest was found.
I agree that this is too incompetent to be just incompetence.
Alyea is freaked when Fritz does this and rightly so.
It was this action that first put Fritz on my radar as "a person of interest" as far as a conspiracy goes.
I can not understand Fritz's behavior, and the same goes for Studebaker who failed to photograph the paper bag that was allegedly found in the sniper's nest. There again you had officers who saw the bag and some who didn't, and if I remember correctly those who saw it did so after Fritz had arrived. There is a photograph of Fritz in the sniper's nest where he is standing at the location of where the bag is supposed to have been. Was he standing on it or was it not there at that moment?
Why would they discredit Rowland?
He should be a star witness, supporting Brennan and Euins and giving a specific time the assassin was in place.
One obviously massive problem was the black male in the SN window at the same time. At a time when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor having his lunch. The remains of this lunch initially being discovered on top of the SN.
I don't understand it either why the WC would discredit Rowland, but they did. Just like they dismissed Victoria Adams' timeline (and ignored the Stroud letter) based on a physically impossible encounter with Shelley and Lovelady.
Fair enough.
I didn't really need to make that point.
Again, fair enough. There's no harm in conjecture.
Dougherty as a decoy negates the need for someone running around with a rifle to plant.
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
Where are the three audible shots coming from?
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
If you follow the train of thought that Dougherty was a decoy, he would have to be there to draw attention away from the real shooter's location. The actual shooter (or perhaps even one of the shooters) could have been on one of the higher up floors of the Dal Tex building, which would fit the trajectory as well.
Would it really be possible to distinguish between shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD or from the building next to it?
I understand it's a hypothesis. I'm just pointing out it's weaknesses.
That's fine. A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something...
-
These are conspiracies are not even comparable.
Criminal Donald and his henchmen purposely lied that the "election was stolen" so he could illegally seize power and overthrow the US Government.
Researchers make up Kennedy conspiracies so they can pretend they discovered some new "evidence".
-
These are conspiracies are not even comparable.
Criminal Donald and his henchmen purposely lied that the "election was stolen" so he could illegally seize power and overthrow the US Government.
Researchers make up Kennedy conspiracies so they can pretend they discovered some new "evidence".
The conspiracies are not comparable?
Donald Trump makes the false claim that there was a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy by (partial list):
* Dominion Voting Systems (with hundreds of computer programmers)
* Poll workers, or some mysterious group, to include millions of fraudulent mail-in ballots
* State officials, like governors and secretary of state, including Republicans
* The USA media, to cover this up
* The foreign media, like Reuters and BBC, to cover this up
To steal the election from Trump. And also, a bunch of judges, including Trump appointees, who looked the other way.
So, it seems to me that Donald Trump’s false stolen election claims and the JFK conspiracy claims are both Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories. If anything, Donald Trump’s claims are even more obviously such a theory.
-
You could do it with a short article.
That's only your opinion. I disagree
This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy.
Again, only your opinion. You are doing what you always do; predetermine the way somebody should respond to you. I don't play that game.
It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy.
Oh yes it would require a massive book, as there are way too many variables in this case that were never properly addressed. I could write a complete chapter alone about the rifle transaction, another one about CE399 and so on. I'm not about to do it, but if I did the result would indeed be a massive book.
No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details. Just list the actions the conspiracy accomplished:
* Swapped out CE-399. Number of people needed to do this without anyone knowing.
* Fake Autopsy Report. Number of people needed to do this.
* Fake Autopsy photographs. Number of people needed to do this.
* Fake Autopsy X-Rays. Number of people needed to do this.
* General Walker shooting evidence. Number of people needed to do this.
* Officer Tippit shooing evidence. Number of people needed to do this.
Etc.
* What the purpose of the assassination was. Like getting the U. S. involved in the Vietnam war.
Don’t leave out anything you argued for in the past, unless you have changed your mind. But include this in a separate list so if one looks at your old posts, we won’t think you were leaving out things to make it appear the conspiracy you believe in was not big.
No long chapters on anything. Just a list. Or would such a list be too long to make?
The problem is that not only do you not have enough time to do this, almost no CTer has enough time to do this, not even those who write books.
Instead of providing such a list, which would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe if, you just say no list is necessary, it would take too much time to make such a list. Instead, I should just take your word for it that the conspiracy you envision is rather small. That is not good enough for me.
And what makes you think I am defending any kind of conspiracy? It is simply my position that, if Oswald did not do it, the most likely conspiracy would be a small scale one with the means to control the evidence.
What evidence being controlled. If you provide a long list than that means a large conspiracy.
Like Trump, you don’t spell out all that you think is “controlled”. He doesn’t provide a list of counties where the votes were altered. He can bring up a new county any time he wants to. Similarly, you don’t spell out all the “evidence” that was controlled. So, it looks like you are both pushing for large conspiracies.
-
"Large" and "Small" are subjective terms. Some would argue that 10 or more individuals makes a "Large" conspiracy. Others might have a higher minimum number in mind.
And I suspect you're including people who were involved with the JFK coverups as part of the conspiracy, which I don't agree with.
People who had no knowledge of whether or not there was a conspiracy had other motives for participating in the coverup (ie protecting their careers, preventing WW3, or covering up CIA-Mafia plots).
-
It would not be necessary to write a whole book, if you were defending a Small Conspiracy. You could do it with a short article. This is only necessary to defend a Large Conspiracy. So, that means that you believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. One that is so large, one would have to write a whole book, just to list all the actions taken by the conspiracy:
* Making CE-399.
* Getting the right people on your side so you can swap in CE-399.
etc.
And coming up with an estimate of the number of people needed to pull this off.
If this was done, all it would take would be one person with access to the evidence. Do you disagree?
-
No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details. Just list the actions the conspiracy accomplished:
* Swapped out CE-399. Number of people needed to do this without anyone knowing.
* Fake Autopsy Report. Number of people needed to do this.
* Fake Autopsy photographs. Number of people needed to do this.
* Fake Autopsy X-Rays. Number of people needed to do this.
* General Walker shooting evidence. Number of people needed to do this.
* Officer Tippit shooing evidence. Number of people needed to do this.
Etc.
* What the purpose of the assassination was. Like getting the U. S. involved in the Vietnam war.
Don’t leave out anything you argued for in the past, unless you have changed your mind. But include this in a separate list so if one looks at your old posts, we won’t think you were leaving out things to make it appear the conspiracy you believe in was not big.
No long chapters on anything. Just a list. Or would such a list be too long to make?
The problem is that not only do you not have enough time to do this, almost no CTer has enough time to do this, not even those who write books.
Instead of providing such a list, which would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe if, you just say no list is necessary, it would take too much time to make such a list. Instead, I should just take your word for it that the conspiracy you envision is rather small. That is not good enough for me.
That is not good enough for me.
And there you go, proving the point I have made for a long time..... Nothing will ever be good enough for you, because you clearly think your opinion always prevails.
No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details.
Don’t leave out anything you argued for in the past, unless you have changed your mind. But include this in a separate list so if one looks at your old posts, we won’t think you were leaving out things to make it appear the conspiracy you believe in was not big.
Once again you are proving a point I made. Not only are you again telling me what to do and how I should do it, but you also contradict yourself rather hilariously by saying on the one hand that no massive book is needed and then telling me I should include everything I have ever argued in the past. Give me a break.
You don't want an actual discussion about the (quality of the) evidence, you want confirmation of your own opinion and you seek it by asking silly questions that are near impossible to answer, in the way you want them to be answered, as well as time consuming. And the outcome is already predetermined; none of it will ever be good enough for you. Even worse, you simply ignore an answer when one is given to you and ask the same question again. I have already adressed your question about CE399 and here you are asking the same question again.
Do you really think I am going to waste my time on something like this? If you do, you're delusional.
would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe
And who are you to make any kind of judgment?
I should just take your word for it that the conspiracy you envision is rather small
I have already told you before I have no desire to try to convince you of anything, because that would be a waste of my time. So, I don't care if you take my word for something or not. I do indeed think a small compartementalized conspiracy is not only a possibility, it's also a far more plausible scenario than the one you envision
What evidence being controlled. If you provide a long list than that means a large conspiracy.
And here you go again, telling me up front what it would mean to you if I provide a list you deem to be long.
Like Trump, you don’t spell out all that you think is “controlled”. He doesn’t provide a list of counties where the votes were altered. He can bring up a new county any time he wants to.
Sorry, not interested in your obsession with Trump
Similarly, you don’t spell out all the “evidence” that was controlled. So, it looks like you are both pushing for large conspiracies.
Pathetic... Once again, your desperation to have your opinion prevail is getting the better of you. Why don't you go and stand in front of a mirror and tell yourself 1000 times just how right your are and how wrong others are.
The sad part is that I am truly convinced that you do not understand what it is your are actually doing. You just don't see it that way and will probably tell me I'm wrong.
-
"Large" and "Small" are subjective terms. Some would argue that 10 or more individuals makes a "Large" conspiracy. Others might have a higher minimum number in mind.
And I suspect you're including people who were involved with the JFK coverups as part of the conspiracy, which I don't agree with.
People who had no knowledge of whether or not there was a conspiracy had other motives for participating in the coverup (ie protecting their careers, preventing WW3, or covering up CIA-Mafia plots).
Indeed. If there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, it would be a very small one, involving only a few people in overall charge, a small team to set up a patsy and a team to carry out the assassination.
Some of the individuals in overall charge would likely also be involved in the subsequent cover up but beyond that nobody else would actually have sufficient knowledge about everything that was happening. Some of the people would even be "involved" without knowing it (like SA Odum, who the FBI falsely claimed had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright in april 1964) or they were simply following orders (like Paul O'Connor, who was present at the autopsy and ordered to speak to nobody about it, which he in fact continued to do until he got permission to talk to the HSCA in the late 70's).
Joe would consider all these people to be actively part of the conspiracy which is utterly ridiculous.
-
If this was done, all it would take would be one person with access to the evidence. Do you disagree?
The same defense could be used by Donald Trump. He could say “To lay out all that these conspirators did, I would have to have access to all the Dominion internal information, all the poll workers secret information that only they know, all the information known by the governors and Secretary of State for all the states, before I could answer that question”.
Do you disagree?
I believe we do have access to all the evidence about the JFK assassination. Not all the information in the world. Not the names of the contacts within Cuba known to agents who are accused of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But I think everything that is really germane to the assassination.
It's too easy for CTers to accuse someone who has information that they cannot divulge, possibly accusing someone who had no part in the assassination of JFK, and then, when they don’t divulge all their information, when all the files related to what these agents know is not released, to present this reluctance to release this information as “proof” of the government’s involvement or coverup on the JFK assassination.
For instance, the U. S. government waited 75 years before releasing all the information on the President Lincoln assassination. CTers argued this was proof that the government was hiding its involvement with the Lincoln assassination. When the information was finally released, it contained nothing about the government’s involvement in this assassination. Perhaps secrets like the identity of spies who helped Union armies, and who could be killed if the KKK found out about them. But nothing really new about the Lincoln assassination.
Do CTers really have proof of the government’s involvement in hiding secrets? Absolutely. All governments do that. Sometimes for good and laudable reasons. Proof of the government’s involvement in the JFK assassination? No. Although some people assume so.
And to your original question. No. I disagree. CTers say they already have enough information about what evidence was tampered with. All they have to do is present a list, with a reasonable estimate of the numbers needed to accomplish each item on the list. They just have to cover what they “believe” they know was tampered with. Which they already “know”.
-
That is not good enough for me.
And there you go, proving the point I have made for a long time..... Nothing will ever be good enough for you, because you clearly think your opinion always prevails.
No massive book is needed. You don’t need to go into details.
Don’t leave out anything you argued for in the past, unless you have changed your mind. But include this in a separate list so if one looks at your old posts, we won’t think you were leaving out things to make it appear the conspiracy you believe in was not big.
Once again you are proving a point I made. Not only are you again telling me what to do and how I should do it, but you also contradict yourself rather hilariously by saying on the one hand that no massive book is needed and then telling me I should include everything I have ever argued in the past. Give me a break.
You are misrepresenting what I request. Not a copy of all your posts or all you ever wrote on the subject. Just something like this:
I believe the conspirators accomplished the following:
* Assassinated JFK. This required, I would estimate, 3 people.
* Made CE-399. This required, I would estimate, 1 ballistic expert.
* Substituted CE-399 for the real stretcher bullet. This would require, 5 people with the all the access to CE-399. So that no one would say “Wait, I took a picture of the stretcher bullet and it looks nothing like CE-399”.
My former beliefs:
* I used to think the General Walker assassination attempt evidence was faked, but I now think it was not.
There. Done. If you really believe in a small conspiracy, involving maybe 9 people (like in my example), perhaps less if some pulled double duty, it would not be a labor of Hercules for you to provide such a list.
However, if there is so much evidence that you think was modified, you don’t think you could make such a list, even after spending hours of work, and would still leave out half of the modified evidence because you forgot about for the moment, then making such a list would be a big project. And doing so would be futile because it would only prove my suspicions. So, naturally, you would make excuses for not doing so.
You don't want an actual discussion about the (quality of the) evidence, you want confirmation of your own opinion and you seek it by asking silly questions that are near impossible to answer, in the way you want them to be answered, as well as time consuming. And the outcome is already predetermined; none of it will ever be good enough for you. Even worse, you simply ignore an answer when one is given to you and ask the same question again. I have already adressed your question about CE399 and here you are asking the same question again.
Near impossible to answer? Dan O’meara had no problem convincing me that he is a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. At least he has made a good case for this claim about himself. He just gave me a short list of the number of people involved, who used Oswald’s rifle, stated none of the evidence was faked, and boom, he made his case. Simple.
But you have not done so. Nor has any other CTer done so, on this forum or in any book that I know of. Dan O’meara is a very atypical CTer.
My questions are not near impossible for you to answer, unless you are a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. Which you seem to be.
Do you really think I am going to waste my time on something like this? If you do, you're delusional.
would enable me to judge how large a conspiracy you believe
And who are you to make any kind of judgment?
Well, until you provide us with some kind of list, like the one I took just 10 minutes to create, I can’t judge for certain if you are a Large-Secret-Enduring CTer. But your reluctance to provide such a list is a pretty good indication that you are such a CTer. Otherwise, I wouldn’t get this constant run around. I would get a short list and we would be done with it.
What I can do is conclude that you have not made a convincing case, or any kind of a case, that you are a believer in a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Other than just making the unsupported claim that this is so. When it would be so easy for you to show that you are a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer, if that were so.
-
And to your original question. No. I disagree. CTers say they already have enough information about what evidence was tampered with. All they have to do is present a list, with a reasonable estimate of the numbers needed to accomplish each item on the list. They just have to cover what they “believe” they know was tampered with. Which they already “know”.
I'm not going to chase your strawman about what "CTers" say.
Please explain why you disagree that it would only take one person to insert CE399 into the evidence stream.
-
Well, let me try to explain it this way. Euins is a witness to the assassination and I have no reason to assume he would intentionally lie. Having said that, I find it strange that he claims to have seen the gunman before and when he was firing, when he said in an interview that he actually ducked behind a wall when he heard the shots. Things get even stranger when he said in another interview that he brought a camera and had actually taken pictures of the TSBD but then somehow lost the camera and he didn't know what happened.
The biggest issue with Euins I have is that if he had seen somebody in the 6th floor window, he would have known exactly from where the shots came and could have told the police. He clearly didn't because it took them some time before the sniper's nest was found.
I understand why I've been confused by the point your making about Euins.
At 12:36 PM on the DPD tapes Sgt Harkness makes a call:
"Witness says shots came from fifth floor, Texas Book Depository store at Houston and Elm. I have him with me now and we are sealing off the building."
You don't seem to realise that this witness was Amos Euins.
It doesn't matter what Euins went on to say or was reported to have said.
It is completely irrelevant.
What matters is that within minutes of the assassination Euins had told Harkness that the shots had come from the 5th floor (I believe Euins made a common mistake when trying to assess which floor it was as the first floor of the TSBD has no windows. He was actually talking about the 6th floor).
As far as I'm concerned, this is incredibly strong evidence that Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the moment of the assassination.
We know also from the DPD tapes that 4 minutes after the assassination Booby Hargis (I think) makes the first call about the TSBD:
"A passer-by states that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building"
although I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute later Haygood calls in:
"I talked to a guy at the scene who says the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository Building with the Hertz Rent A Car sign on top."
Again, I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute after this is the Harkness call with Euins' information and two minutes after this is Brewer's call:
"A witness says he saw 'em pull the weapon from the window off the second floor on the southeast corner of the Depository Building."
We also know from Barnett's testimony that within three minutes of the assassination Brennan had come forward with his information.
Within eight minutes of the shooting witnesses had approached five different officers with information that the shots had come from the TSBD.
I can not understand Fritz's behavior...
Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator whose specific function was to control the evidence/suspect/early investigation.
I don't understand it either why the WC would discredit Rowland, but they did.
As I 've said, the problem with Rowland's testimony is that he has a black man in the SN at the same time as he sees the man with the rifle.
They cannot accept his observation of the man with the rifle even though it totally supports the testimony of others who witnessed a white male with a rifle on the 6th floor. If they accept that, they also have to accept that he saw Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch in the SN at the same time.
This is so big a problem that they discard this star witness testimony about a white man with a rifle on the 6th floor just before the motorcade arrives.
But what would you suggest Dougherty is a decoy for?
If you follow the train of thought that Dougherty was a decoy, he would have to be there to draw attention away from the real shooter's location. The actual shooter (or perhaps even one of the shooters) could have been on one of the higher up floors of the Dal Tex building, which would fit the trajectory as well.
Would it really be possible to distinguish between shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD or from the building next to it?
That's fine. A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something...
You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Other than that it's rock solid.
-
You are misrepresenting what I request. Not a copy of all your posts or all you ever wrote on the subject. Just something like this:
There. Done. If you really believe in a small conspiracy, involving maybe 9 people (like in my example), perhaps less if some pulled double duty, it would not be a labor of Hercules for you to provide such a list.
However, if there is so much evidence that you think was modified, you don’t think you could make such a list, even after spending hours of work, and would still leave out half of the modified evidence because you forgot about for the moment, then making such a list would be a big project. And doing so would be futile because it would only prove my suspicions. So, naturally, you would make excuses for not doing so.
Near impossible to answer? Dan O’meara had no problem convincing me that he is a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. At least he has made a good case for this claim about himself. He just gave me a short list of the number of people involved, who used Oswald’s rifle, stated none of the evidence was faked, and boom, he made his case. Simple.
But you have not done so. Nor has any other CTer done so, on this forum or in any book that I know of. Dan O’meara is a very atypical CTer.
My questions are not near impossible for you to answer, unless you are a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer. Which you seem to be.
Well, until you provide us with some kind of list, like the one I took just 10 minutes to create, I can’t judge for certain if you are a Large-Secret-Enduring CTer. But your reluctance to provide such a list is a pretty good indication that you are such a CTer. Otherwise, I wouldn’t get this constant run around. I would get a short list and we would be done with it.
What I can do is conclude that you have not made a convincing case, or any kind of a case, that you are a believer in a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Other than just making the unsupported claim that this is so. When it would be so easy for you to show that you are a Small-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believer, if that were so.
I'll say it one more time. I'm not playing your game and don't give a damn what your "conclusions" are. What is it that you don't understand when I say that I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything?
It's beyond obvious that you have set out to conclude that most CT's believe in a conspiracy involving a massive number of people, so that you can then say that it would be impossible for such a conspiracy to ever work. The funny part is that you have already told us what your ultimate conclusion will be, so it doesn't matter what anybody tells you.
-
I understand why I've been confused by the point your making about Euins.
At 12:36 PM on the DPD tapes Sgt Harkness makes a call:
"Witness says shots came from fifth floor, Texas Book Depository store at Houston and Elm. I have him with me now and we are sealing off the building."
You don't seem to realise that this witness was Amos Euins.
It doesn't matter what Euins went on to say or was reported to have said.
It is completely irrelevant.
What matters is that within minutes of the assassination Euins had told Harkness that the shots had come from the 5th floor (I believe Euins made a common mistake when trying to assess which floor it was as the first floor of the TSBD has no windows. He was actually talking about the 6th floor).
As far as I'm concerned, this is incredibly strong evidence that Euins saw a man with a rifle pointing towards the President at the moment of the assassination.
We know also from the DPD tapes that 4 minutes after the assassination Booby Hargis (I think) makes the first call about the TSBD:
"A passer-by states that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building"
although I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute later Haygood calls in:
"I talked to a guy at the scene who says the shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository Building with the Hertz Rent A Car sign on top."
Again, I'm not sure who this witness is.
One minute after this is the Harkness call with Euins' information and two minutes after this is Brewer's call:
"A witness says he saw 'em pull the weapon from the window off the second floor on the southeast corner of the Depository Building."
We also know from Barnett's testimony that within three minutes of the assassination Brennan had come forward with his information.
Within eight minutes of the shooting witnesses had approached five different officers with information that the shots had come from the TSBD.
Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator whose specific function was to control the evidence/suspect/early investigation.
As I 've said, the problem with Rowland's testimony is that he has a black man in the SN at the same time as he sees the man with the rifle.
They cannot accept his observation of the man with the rifle even though it totally supports the testimony of others who witnessed a white male with a rifle on the 6th floor. If they accept that, they also have to accept that he saw Bonnie Ray Williams having his lunch in the SN at the same time.
This is so big a problem that they discard this star witness testimony about a white man with a rifle on the 6th floor just before the motorcade arrives.
You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Other than that it's rock solid.
You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.
hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy. The fact that Brennan and Euins saw a man in the window with a rifle or pipe doesn't even support your claim that it was Dougherty and that he was the shooter.
And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.
But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis
-
You are definitely missing something.
There is not one speck of evidence to support what you're saying and lots of evidence against it (ie: no early witnesses suggested the Dal-Tex as a location for the shooter.)
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Again, it was and still is an hypothesis.
hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
It is a story you've made up that cannot be corroborated, a fantasy if you will.
Which makes it no different than your Gang of Four theory. The fact that witnesses pointed to the TSBD tells you nothing about the involvement of the four men you accuse of being part of a conspiracy.
And saying that Fritz's behaviour makes a lot of sense when he is viewed as a co-conspirator is no more corroboration than me saying Doughtery could have been a decoy because it would explain why nobody was seen running down the stairs after the shots were fired.
But perhaps for you a theory without solid evidence is better that a hypothesis that lacks evidence. In any case, the main difference seems to be that you want to defend your theory and I am merely testing the possible validity of my hypothesis
I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:
"A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something..."
So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!
Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".
PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.
-
I'm perfectly aware it was a hypothesis.
The post I responded to - involving your hypothesis of Dougherty the decoy, distracting attention from the Dal-Tex - contained the following statement:
"A hypothesis that can not stand when scrutinized needs to fail. But so far I have not really seen a weakness. Perhaps I missed something..."
So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!
Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".
PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.
So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.
The first question that needs to be answered in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory, by making the classic mistake of only looking at the evidence published by the WC. Just how many interviews did the FBI conduct and for how many of those are there TD 302 reports that never got to the WC? Who knows what's in those?
For example, are you aware the FBI investigated a claim from a worker at the Dal-Tex that a day before the assassination she saw men putting rifles in cars behind the TSBD. The chased it all the way to Mexico to clear up the matter and as far as I know none of it is mentioned in the WC report or 26 volumes.
Which is surprising considering the, almost impossible, standards you hold others to whilst maintaining that "not much can be considered a fact in this case".
First of all, you agreed with me that not much can be considered a fact in this case. Secondly, I don't hold anybody to almost impossible standards. If you make a claim or present a theory you either have evidence for it or you don't. Normally people who lack that evidence are the ones complaining about my high standard of proof. Rather telling, don't you think?
Rather than counter this scrutiny you've just started lashing out!
There was nothing to counter. Your so called scrutiny was no more that saying you can't find evidence for it so it needs to be dismissed. And since when is pointing out the flaws in your theory "lashing out"? You really need to have a good look in the mirror. One moment we had a normal conversation and the next you are in full attack mode calling my hypothesis a fantasy.
Your hypothesis could not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny and, as in your own words, it "needs to fail".
You really don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, don't you?
PS: No thanks needed for clearing up your misunderstanding regarding Euins. He is a credible witness. he saw a man pointing a rifle towards the President at the moment of the shooting from the SN.
And do I disagree with you? Did I say he was not credible? But whatever you say, chief, you're the one who seems to think he has all the answers.
-
So I scrutinised your hypothesis and found a glaring weakness - that there's zero evidence to back this hypothesis up.
That's not a weakness. It's a given for a hypothesis. By your criteria every hypothesis ever made needs to be dismissed instantly, just because there is no evidence to support it yet.
The first question that needs to answer in a hypothesis is; is there a circumstance that makes it an impossibility? The answer for my hypothesis is; no, there isn't. It is not impossible that the man seen in the window was a decoy, nor is it impossible that shots were actually fired from the Dal-Tex building. The next question would have to be; can credible evidence be found to support the hypothesis. In this case we never got to that point because you dismissed it instantly, probably to protect your own pet theory.
My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?
-
My bad.
What's the evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex?
Let's start with this;
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Is this guy being there, just making a phone call, a mere coincidence?
-
Let's start with this;
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrading.htm
Is this guy being there, just making a phone call, a mere coincidence?
I'll try again, what evidence is there for shots from the Dal-Tex?
-
I'll try again, what evidence is there for shots from the Dal-Tex?
What? Not even an "hey that can hardly be a coincidence" reply? Instead just an outright dismissal, again?
You still don't get it, do you now? If I already had the evidence it wouldn't be a hypothesis anymore, it would be a theory, like the one you're pushing.
Show me the documents about the search of the Dal-Tex building and all the FB 302 related to the Dal Tex and I'll tell you, ok?
In the meantime, the trajectory to the higher floors of the Dal-Tex building do not rule out shots being fired from there.
Now, it's my turn;
What evidence is there for Dougherty being the shooter?
-
What? Not even an "hey that can hardly be a coincidence" reply? Instead just an outright dismissal, again?
You still don't get it, do you now? If I already had the evidence it wouldn't be a hypothesis anymore, it would be a theory, like the one you're pushing.
Show me the documents about the search of the Dal-Tex building and all the FB 302 related to the Dal Tex and I'll tell you, ok?
In the meantime, the trajectory to the higher floors of the Dal-Tex building do not rule out shots being fired from there.
Now, it's my turn;
What evidence is there for Dougherty being the shooter?
What do you mean "now it's my turn"?
First provide some evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex, then it's your turn.
-
What do you mean "now it's my turn"?
First provide some evidence for shots from the Dal-Tex, then it's your turn.
Thanks for the one sided conversation.
Just for the record; I was prepared to give consideration to your theory as you raised some good points (some better than others) when you were clearly not prepared to even entertain the possibility of my hypothesis.
I'll start digging in the reports about the Dal-Tex building in my own time. If I find something I'll expand on my hypothesis. If I don't, I'll discard it as a non starter. Now let's see how you will do with your theory.
-
There are only two white males whose whereabouts are unaccounted for and who had any right to be on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination - Jack Dougherty and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Arnold Rowland reports that at 12:15 PM a white male carrying a high powered scoped rifle is on the 6th floor at the same time as a black male in the SN window.
The testimonies of Williams, Norman and Jarman place Williams on the 6th floor at this time.
The testimonies of the first four officers to discover the SN place Williams' lunch remains in or on the SN.
This places Williams at the SN while having his lunch at the time Rowland sees a black male at the SN window.
Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the man-with-rifle and he is having his lunch in the SN (IMO)
Jack Dougherty testifies that he was on the 6th floor collecting stock just before the assassination.
This places him on the 6th floor at the same time as Rowland's man-with-rifle and BRW.
Williams testifies there was no-one else on the 6th floor while he was having his lunch ( he would surely have heard someone collecting stock).
Dougherty then testifies that he went down to the 5th floor, collecting stock, and it was here that he heard the first shot.
Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD and use the elevator to go to the 5th floor (apparently Oswald, having his lunch in the Domino room, sees them enter the building around 12:25 PM)
They get to the 5th floor at the north-west corner of the building and make their way to the south-east side of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
BRW decides to make his way down to the 5th floor.
When he gets there he makes his way from the north-west corner to the south-east corner of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
Shortly after the shooting all three men run from the south-east to the south-west of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
And at no time does Jack Dougherty mention these men criss-crossing the floor he was supposed to be on.
Then there's Dougherty's bizarre story about going down to the 1st floor after hearing a shot coming from above him, then finding out shots were fired at the President from Eddie Piper, then returning to the 6th floor even though he'd been working on the 5th floor and even though he'd heard the sound of a shot from above him on the 5th.
WTF!!
If there is anything that proves the WC was a sham it's the questioning of Jack Dougherty.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
Who was the white male with the rifle?
Personally, I believe Jack Dougherty was the man with the rifle. I believe the available evidence favours this identification.
-
There are only two white males whose whereabouts are unaccounted for and who had any right to be on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination - Jack Dougherty and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Arnold Rowland reports that at 12:15 PM a white male carrying a high powered scoped rifle is on the 6th floor at the same time as a black male in the SN window.
The testimonies of Williams, Norman and Jarman place Williams on the 6th floor at this time.
The testimonies of the first four officers to discover the SN place Williams' lunch remains in or on the SN.
This places Williams at the SN while having his lunch at the time Rowland sees a black male at the SN window.
Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the man-with-rifle and he is having his lunch in the SN (IMO)
Jack Dougherty testifies that he was on the 6th floor collecting stock just before the assassination.
This places him on the 6th floor at the same time as Rowland's man-with-rifle and BRW.
Williams testifies there was no-one else on the 6th floor while he was having his lunch ( he would surely have heard someone collecting stock).
Dougherty then testifies that he went down to the 5th floor, collecting stock, and it was here that he heard the first shot.
Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD and use the elevator to go to the 5th floor (apparently Oswald, having his lunch in the Domino room, sees them enter the building around 12:25 PM)
They get to the 5th floor at the north-west corner of the building and make their way to the south-east side of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
BRW decides to make his way down to the 5th floor.
When he gets there he makes his way from the north-west corner to the south-east corner of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
Shortly after the shooting all three men run from the south-east to the south-west of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
And at no time does Jack Dougherty mention these men criss-crossing the floor he was supposed to be on.
Then there's Dougherty's bizarre story about going down to the 1st floor after hearing a shot coming from above him, then finding out shots were fired at the President from Eddie Piper, then returning to the 6th floor even though he'd been working on the 5th floor and even though he'd heard the sound of a shot from above him on the 5th.
WTF!!
If there is anything that proves the WC was a sham it's the questioning of Jack Dougherty.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
Who was the white male with the rifle?
Personally, I believe Jack Dougherty was the man with the rifle. I believe the available evidence favours this identification.
Opinions are not proof.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
In the official narrative all this applies to Oswald.
Who was the white male with the rifle?
Personally, I believe Jack Dougherty was the man with the rifle. I believe the available evidence favours this identification.
Believing is something you do in church.
And this from the guy who wants evidence up front for a hypothesis, which normally is the starting point of an investigation to find out if there is evidence to support it. Hilarious! Sorry Dan, but you blew it big time.
-
Opinions are not proof.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
In the official narrative all this applies to Oswald.
Who was the white male with the rifle?
Personally, I believe Jack Dougherty was the man with the rifle. I believe the available evidence favours this identification.
Believing is something you do in church.
And this from the guy who wants evidence up front for a hypothesis, which normally is the starting point of an investigation to find out if there is evidence to support it. Hilarious! Sorry Dan, but you blew it big time.
Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.
Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.
Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
In the official narrative all this applies to Oswald.
You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.
Believing is something you do in church.
I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!
A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in".
It is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.
Which is more than you usually provide.
-
There are only two white males whose whereabouts are unaccounted for and who had any right to be on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination - Jack Dougherty and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Why must the shooter be a white male? Besides, I believe that Steven Wilson was also unaccounted for.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
Who, besides Brennan?
-
Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.
Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.
Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
In the official narrative all this applies to Oswald.
You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.
Believing is something you do in church.
I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!
A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in".
It is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.
Which is more than you usually provide.
Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.
Ah... nasty Danny is expressing his frustration
Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.
Really, I thought you already knew what happened.... That's what your postings suggest.
Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?
To what? A theory that you can not prove?
You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.
I just went with the summary. But the majority of your post hasn't got a shred of evidence in it that clears Oswald and points to Dougherty. This clever boy can read, you see!
I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!
Perhaps your just in the wrong place. Church is everywhere you want it to be, right?
A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in". It is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Ok, you've got me... it is the interpretation that has to be believed in. Happy now?
Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.
Which is more than you usually provide.
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, Dan
There's a six years old in the other room throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants. Is that you?
-
Why must the shooter be a white male? Besides, I believe that Steven Wilson was also unaccounted for.
You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?
Who, besides Brennan?
Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.
In reply #57 you wrote:
"Besides, only Brennan and Euins ever claimed to see a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window."
Yet here you are, as per usual, talking sh%t.
-
You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?
Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.
In reply #57 you wrote:
"Besides, only Brennan and Euins ever claimed to see a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window."
Yet here you are, as per usual, talking sh%t.
You really get nasty when you don't get what you want, don't you?
-
Are you still here Mr Evidence?
Mr "Jim Braden" and "it's possible maybe the trajectory came from the Dal-Tex perhaps"
Now you've been outed why don't you run along and play with your tinfoil friends.
Ah... nasty Danny is expressing his frustration
Some of us are trying to get to the bottom of what happened, rather than parasite off the work of others.
Really, I thought you already knew what happened.... That's what your postings suggest.
Has it ever crossed your mind to actually contribute?
To what? A theory that you can not prove?
You miss out the majority of my post and leave in the bit that might also apply to Oswald.
Aren't you a clever boy.
I just went with the summary. But the majority of your post hasn't got a shred of evidence in it that clears Oswald and points to Dougherty. This clever boy can read, you see!
I believe you have nothing to offer yet I don't find myself in a church!
Perhaps your just in the wrong place. Church is everywhere you want it to be, right?
A theory is not proof. It is something that must be "believed in". It is an interpretation of the available evidence.
Ok, you've got me... it the interpretation that has to be believed in. Happy now?
Over the posts I've made on this thread I've presented a wealth of evidence that guides my interpretation of events.
You have provided nothing.
Which is more than you usually provide.
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, Dan
There's a six years old in the other room throwing a tantrum because he's not getting what he wants. Is that you?
Contribute. Don't parasite.
This thread contains a record of my contribution and your lack of contribution.
It's there for anyone to read.
-
You know Doris Burns entered the offices of Allyn-Bacon just after the assassination and spoke to Wilson.
Why are you pretending you don't?
So he was unaccounted for during the assassination then, right?
Euins.
Again, you know this but are just jerking off for some reason.
Why is it that whenever your claims are challenged you have a temper tantrum and go straight to the personal attack?
Euins told Underwood that it was a "colored man", his affidavit says that it was a white man, and he told the Warren Commission that he couldn't tell which he was.
-
Your "contribution" is a wild "gang of four" theory for which you can not provide any evidence except your opinion. Get real.
If only I had something as solid as your Dal-Tex shooter horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
-
If only I had something as solid as your Dal-Tex shooter horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
So, this is what it looks like when you show your true colors.
hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
And what was the evidence again that Dougherty was the shooter? Oh, sorry, you haven't got any, mr "I wanna get to the bottom of this"
We're done. I don't waste my time with the fantasies of cry babies. If you want to have an adult discussion you need to grow up.
-
So, this is what it looks like when you show your true colors.
hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
And what was the evidence again that Dougherty was the shooter? Oh, sorry, you haven't got any, mr "I wanna get to the bottom of this"
We're done. I don't waste my time with the fantasies of cry babies. If you want to have an adult discussion you need to grow up.
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
Of course we're done.
Do you think I'm wasting my time on someone who can't tell the difference between "limited evidence" and no evidence?
You've outed yourself and your crazy Dal-Tex beliefs.
Run along.
-
"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
Of course we're done.
Do you think I'm wasting my time on someone who can't tell the difference between "limited evidence" and no evidence?
You've outed yourself and your crazy Dal-Tex beliefs.
Run along.
Says the guy who can not provide a shred of evidence for Dougherty being the shooter and Fritz being a co-conspirator.
Btw you missed the part where it says; without any assumption of its truth.
And who said I had any Dal-Tex beliefs? You still haven't figured out what a hypothesis really is, have you now?
You're way out of your depth, but if it helps your fragile ego, I'll be happy to say that you are the superior one. Happy now?
-
There are only two white males whose whereabouts are unaccounted for and who had any right to be on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination - Jack Dougherty and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Arnold Rowland reports that at 12:15 PM a white male carrying a high powered scoped rifle is on the 6th floor at the same time as a black male in the SN window.
The testimonies of Williams, Norman and Jarman place Williams on the 6th floor at this time.
The testimonies of the first four officers to discover the SN place Williams' lunch remains in or on the SN.
This places Williams at the SN while having his lunch at the time Rowland sees a black male at the SN window.
Williams is on the 6th floor at the same time as the man-with-rifle and he is having his lunch in the SN (IMO)
Jack Dougherty testifies that he was on the 6th floor collecting stock just before the assassination.
This places him on the 6th floor at the same time as Rowland's man-with-rifle and BRW.
Williams testifies there was no-one else on the 6th floor while he was having his lunch ( he would surely have heard someone collecting stock).
Dougherty then testifies that he went down to the 5th floor, collecting stock, and it was here that he heard the first shot.
Jarman and Norman enter the TSBD and use the elevator to go to the 5th floor (apparently Oswald, having his lunch in the Domino room, sees them enter the building around 12:25 PM)
They get to the 5th floor at the north-west corner of the building and make their way to the south-east side of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
BRW decides to make his way down to the 5th floor.
When he gets there he makes his way from the north-west corner to the south-east corner of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
Shortly after the shooting all three men run from the south-east to the south-west of the building. At no time is Jack Dougherty mentioned.
And at no time does Jack Dougherty mention these men criss-crossing the floor he was supposed to be on.
Then there's Dougherty's bizarre story about going down to the 1st floor after hearing a shot coming from above him, then finding out shots were fired at the President from Eddie Piper, then returning to the 6th floor even though he'd been working on the 5th floor and even though he'd heard the sound of a shot from above him on the 5th.
WTF!!
If there is anything that proves the WC was a sham it's the questioning of Jack Dougherty.
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
More credible witnesses see a white male in the SN just before the assassination.
Multiple witnesses report seeing a rifle at the SN window.
3 clearly audible shots are heard from the vast majority of witnesses.
3 shells are found by the first officers to discover the SN
Multiple witnesses inside the TSBD report that the sound of the shots came from inside the TSBD.
Who was the white male with the rifle?
Personally, I believe Jack Dougherty was the man with the rifle. I believe the available evidence favours this identification.
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2zKRFGb/DS-QUOTES-TSBD.png)
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
_Wrong. A number of witnesses saw only part of Oswald's rifle—not Oswald himself—another saw Oswald in the sn window sporting a white T-shirt. Brennan saw Oswald pull the trigger. Euins saw Oswald pull the trigger. Brennan was sure Oswald was white and looked like himself. Euins couldn't see enough of Oswald to determine if he looked like himself, except for his 'do.
-
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/failedtoidentify.jpg)
-
Mr. EUINS. I was still down here, looking up at the building.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you see in the building?
Mr. EUINS. I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot.
-
The biggest sign of an enduring conspiracy?
The US government delaying declassification of JFK assassination files 58 years later.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8NmSD5b/brennan-telegram-scumbag.png)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2zKRFGb/DS-QUOTES-TSBD.png)
Multiple credible witnesses see a white male pointing a rifle from the SN towards the President at the time of the assassination.
_Wrong. A number of witnesses saw only part of Oswald's rifle—not Oswald himself—another saw Oswald in the sn window sporting a white T-shirt. Brennan saw Oswald pull the trigger. Euins saw Oswald pull the trigger. Brennan was sure Oswald was white and looked like himself. Euins couldn't see enough of Oswald to determine if he looked like himself, except for his 'do.
"Brennan was sure Oswald was white and looked like himself."
"He looks like him...I just can't be positive." - Brennan
Hmmmm....
-
The CTer loons debate their equally baseless theories. Comedy gold. Where is Inspector Clouseau now that we need him?
-
The CTer loons debate their equally baseless theories. Comedy gold. Where is Inspector Clouseau now that we need him?
At least they debate, which is a hell of a lot more than you ever do or are capable of.
Come to think of it, your presence here is somewhat superfluous.
-
At least they debate, which is a hell of a lot more than you ever do or are capable of.
Says the contrarian.
-
Says the contrarian.
Translation; Says the guy who doesn't agree with me.
There is just no way to have a normal conversation or debate with you. Why is that?
-
@THE OP
The Sign of a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory
---------------------------------------------
THE SIGNS OF THE ENDURING REALITY
THAT IT WAS OSWALD (AKA HE DID IT)
NO CONSPIRACY THEORY NEEDED HERE
---------------------------------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1QtRy9h/ENDURING-10-TH-PATTON.png)
billchapman
-
IT WAS OSWALD (AKA HE DID IT)
(https://cdn.britannica.com/25/160325-050-EB1C8FB7/image-instruments-Earth-satellite-NASA-Suomi-National-2012.jpg)
Come back ...come back here Bill Chapman before it's too late!
-
(https://cdn.britannica.com/25/160325-050-EB1C8FB7/image-instruments-Earth-satellite-NASA-Suomi-National-2012.jpg)
Come back ...come back here Bill Chapman before it's too late!
Why would you want him to come back? Isn't outer space the best place for him?
-
The CTer loons debate their equally baseless theories. Comedy gold. Where is Inspector Clouseau now that we need him?
Now, where were we before your sudden disappearance...
"You have suggested that numerous random citizens were lying about material facts in the assassination of the President and some even had "foreknowledge" of the event in the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever."
"Numerous random citizens"?
It might be enough to point out that the names I've listed are all male employees of the TSBD.
But there's more to it than that - other than James Jarman every single person who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day, the same floor from which the assassination took place.
You call that random?
As for those who had foreknowledge of the assassination - what kind of evidence could there be? Secret recordings?
"You have no idea how long BRW was on the 6th floor. None. He didn't know himself as he gave varying estimates."
On the contrary, the evidence I've presented so far, the testimonies of Wiliiams, Norman, Jarman and Rowland, tell us something very specific - at 12:22 PM Norman and Jarman were out in front of the TSBD whilst, on the 6th floor, Williams was having his lunch at the same time a white male carrying a high-powered, scoped rifle was on the same floor.
I am well aware BRW gave varying estimates, I make a specific point about it - after owning up to being alone on the 6th floor, every time he is questioned about how long he was up there the estimates get longer and longer.
He starts of at 3 minutes, then 5 minutes, then 10, 12, 15 and, finally, 20 minutes.
BRW testifies that he was up on the 6th floor for 20 minutes, something corroborated by Jarman, Norman and Rowland.
"You just pick a solution that fits your desired interpretation. Which itself makes no sense."
This particular discussion started when you asked me why I believe there is some kind of conspiracy. I have presented just a small amount of evidence, so far, as to why I view things the way I do.
The quality of my interpretation of this evidence depends on the quality (and quantity) of evidence and how good (or not) my reasoning is. If my interpretation stands up to genuine scrutiny then it is sound but, so far, you've dismissively brushed it off because, I assume, it doesn't fit in with the interpretation you've been given.
"Why don't you make a point instead of all this pedantic nitpicking?"
I am making a point.
In fact, I'm making a few points but there are only two that need concern us here -
1) Other than Danny Arce, everyone who lied to the investigating authorities was on the 6th floor that day.
2) BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin.
Presenting large amounts of self-corroborating evidence that indicates a specific interpretation isn't "pedantic nitpicking".
It's being thorough.
"So what if BRW was on the 6th floor at the same time as the "assassin"? He didn't see anything."
Again with this crazy argument.
We've been over this a number of times - if he didn't see anything he wouldn't be lying to the DPD and FBI.
End of story.
Also, it's not just a question of BRW being on the 6th floor at the same time as the assassin, something the testimonial evidence abundantly demonstrates.
The testimonies of the first officers to see the SN - Mooney, Brewer, Haygood, Hill, Craig - place BRW's lunch remains in/on the SN. Montgomery, who came slightly later, describes the same.
Along with Rowland's testimony, the evidence indicates Williams was actually in the SN while he was having his lunch.
"You haven't demonstrated that he lied about anything or created any fake narrative. You have just substituted your own subjective interpretation of events to reach that conclusion while dismissing perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions."
Bonnie Ray Williams - "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior."
Hank Norman - "I went to the fifth floor...Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman...went with me."
Junior Jarman - "After eating lunch, Jarman went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor"
All three men telling exactly the same lie.
Williams went up to the 6th floor alone. He joined Norman and Jarman on the fifth after having stayed up there for at least 20 minutes. They did not go up to the 5th floor together. It's a lie.
There is no reason for Norman and Jarman to tell this lie. The only person this lie affects is Williams, it takes him away from the 6th floor. Norman and Jarman are lying to cover for Williams.
If you have any "perfectly reasonable alternative conclusions" let's hear them.
"Just saying over and over that he lied doesn't make it so."
Just denying the evidence over and over again doesn't make it go away.