Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1

I've seen some persuasive arguments that Oswald was wearing his white T-shirt when he was shooting from the 6th floor and then Oswald put on his brown shirt when seen by Baker and then it makes sense that Oswald who would have been a bit apprehensive after being seen by the Law, simply wrapped his shirt around his waist when seen by Reid, much like the following image and to be honest, at first I didn't even notice the shirt around her waist! ;)


Howard Brennan indicated Oswald was wearing a white t-shirt when he saw him fire the final shot. The problem with that is it doesn't explain the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when he was arrested. My belief based on the varying descriptions of what Oswad was wearing from the time he fired the shots to the time he was arrested, is that Oswald was wearing his tan shirt but that it was unbuttoned and completely open. That might explain why some witnesses, (Brennan, Reid) remember seeing him in a white t-shirt. I find it much easier to believe they just didn't notice the unbuttoned tan shirt than Oswald was putting that shirt on and off numerous times during his journey from the sniper's nest to the Texas Theater.
2
Anyone who is unable to acknowledge that Oswald's behavior was rather odd and puzzling for someone who was going to shoot the President in a matter of hours strikes me as closed-minded to an extreme. I can acknowledge the evidence clearly pointing to him while also acknowledging "This is a huge piece that just doesn't seem to fit."

Dear F.P.R.,

If long-iron-wieldin' assassins are supposed to be all nervous and fidgety and everything before The Big Event, how in the world could they hit anything while sweatin' and twitchin' so dog-gone much?

-- Tom
3
LP--

Even the best CT'ers and LNT'ers seem vulnerable to certain CT eccentricities.

Both groups remind me of lawyers, PR representatives or partisans arguing a case.

If I say I have reasonable doubts Gov. JBC held onto his Stetson hat in his right hand after being shot through the right wrist by large slug that tumbled inside his wrist (the WC LNT SBT) an LNT'er will then say my doubts are unreasonable. I say Cyril Wecht agrees with me. The LNT'ers say Wecht was a bum. And so on.

On the CT side, I say I think nothing funny happened at Bethesda, other than perhaps a less-than-stellar autopsy. I am told I work for the CIA.

So it goes.

Since I actually do work for the CIA and we take at least a modicum of pride in the quality of our recruits, I am aghast that anyone would think YOU were one of us.  :D :D :D If anyone is interested, the monthly stipend is up to $122.75.

I have not abandoned the idea that JBC's wrist wound may have been a separate wound caused by a fragment from the head shot. Mysteries abound.

Anyone who is unable to acknowledge that Oswald's behavior was rather odd and puzzling for someone who was going to shoot the President in a matter of hours strikes me as closed-minded to an extreme. I can acknowledge the evidence clearly pointing to him while also acknowledging "This is a huge piece that just doesn't seem to fit."

4
LP:

Evidently you contend you know more about Inspector Sawyer saw and did on 11.22 than Sawyer himself, and as he testified under oath to the WC. 

Well, hubris is sometimes a trait of CT'ers and LNT'ers.

Is this some game? Is deliberate obtuseness a new debating technique?

I don't have any problem at all with what Sawyer told the WC or with anything else that Sawyer ACTUALLY SAID. Neither I nor anyone else seems to know where the "Winchester" came from. Speculation is that Euins described the sound as being like an "automatic" rifle and that Sawyer or someone expanded this into a Winchester (not an automatic rifle!) because "Rifleman" was then extremely popular and opens with Chuck Connors firing his Winchester about 20 times in three seconds.

We have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of Sawyer saying anything about a mystery man running from the rear of the TSBD with a rifle. The actual evidence - Sawyer's WC testimony and the FBI report I linked - is to the CONTRARY.

FWIW, Chuck's Winchester was not a 30-30 but a 44-40:

5
Gas was a lot higher than $3.50 under Biden and it wasn't due to spending on our troops. It was due to spending one liberal programs like the climate change scam.

More Corbett BS:

Gas prices frequently hovered around or dropped below \(\$3.50\) per gallon during various periods of Joe Biden’s presidency.
 - it was as high $5.02 because of Surging Post-Pandemic Demand

Now, if President "Rapist" doesn't do something soon, it will be at or above $5 after Memorial Day with no end in sight.
He is the causin' of it all
6
TG--

I was addressing the matter of Gov. JBC's wrist, and Wecht's view on that.

I readily concede CT'ers, and LNT'ers, grasp at straws and bash straw-men in making their arguments.

If you think JBC held onto his Stetson hat after being shot through the hat-holding wrist, that is fine.
7
I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary

"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".

That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.


Yes, ignorance is often a huge factor. Some of the long-time club members I am dealing with are so upset at the situation that they adamantly refuse to even consider looking at the defendant”s presentation of their side of the issue. It is extremely frustrating to me for them to be like that.
8
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard.  :D :D :D

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.

I don't think my absolute conviction that Oswald was the assassin is in anyway a character flaw. It is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. There are some things worth being open minded about. The existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. But not the possibility of Oswald's innocence. That does not exist. I am proud to be closed minded about that.

I will confess to having a lack of humility. If it weren't for that character flaw, I'd be perfect.
9
My thoughts exactly, Oswald's later behaviour with the jacket shows where his mind was, the thought of the spendthrift Oswald discarding a perfectly good jacket easily demonstrates that Oswald would do whatever it took to evade capture.

I've seen some persuasive arguments that Oswald was wearing his white T-shirt when he was shooting from the 6th floor and then Oswald put on his brown shirt when seen by Baker and then it makes sense that Oswald who would have been a bit apprehensive after being seen by the Law, simply wrapped his shirt around his waist when seen by Reid, much like the following image and to be honest, at first I didn't even notice the shirt around her waist! ;)



To better visualize the Reid encounter, Oswald was seen by Reid going through the door, pic 27 and they crossed paths at the hand written "XR".



JohnM



I've seen some persuasive arguments that Oswald was wearing his white T-shirt when he was shooting from the 6th floor and then Oswald put on his brown shirt when seen by Baker and then it makes sense that Oswald who would have been a bit apprehensive after being seen by the Law, simply wrapped his shirt around his waist when seen by Reid, much like the following image and to be honest, at first I didn't even notice the shirt around her waist! ;)



An idea that came to me yesterday is that perhaps LHO had folded and rolled his brown shirt into as small an object as feasible (perhaps about the size of a coke bottle). If he held it in one hand similar to the way he would hold a coke, perhaps Mrs. Reid mistook it to be a coke (after just glancing at it or seeing it “out of the corner of her eye”). There is no way to either confirm this was true or not, but I think it is a possibility that makes sense to me. Your “mileage may vary”.

10
I don't understand how you can say you were on both sides - that is, you were once a conspiracy believer - and then say you are "baffled that so many people can't figure it out." You can't remember what led you to the conspiracy side?

I too was a conspiracist but clearly remember what led me to that conclusion. So I can understand why others make the same mistakes I did. E.g., the SBT, timing of the shots, Zapruder film and JFK's reaction. I can add that I had a belief that history can't be changed so easily and that great events need a great cause. And Oswald with a $20 rifle could not be that cause. Now I know that even a nobody like Oswald can alter history by himself.

I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary

"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".

That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10