JFK Assassination Forum

So you are saying that your spidey sense that Connally was referring to the turn at z164 as the turn to look at JFK even though he makes no attempt to look at JFK

Just how did you determine he was not trying to look at JFK when he turned.

even though Mary Woodward said that was before the first shot (along with a few dozen others).  You aren’t relying on the zfilm. You are relying on your spidey senses.  I prefer evidence.

I don't give a crap what Mary Woodward said unless you can establish what she said is correct. I'm not relying on my senses. I am relying on JBC's senses which are corrobrorated by the Z-film. I think JBC would know if he heard a shot before he felt the shot that hit him in the back.

You also have a strange view of what constitutes corroboration. Any independent evidence can provide corroboration.

The fact that it seems strange to you doesn't concern me in the least.

We don't have to read his mind. A mere two days after completing his preparations for the attempt on Walker, and while living in the most gun-happy, gun-friendly state in America, he chose to buy a cheap rifle by mail from a dealer in Illinois using his own post office box and an alias when he could have easily bought a better rifle that would have been completely untraceable right there in Dallas. This is what he did, regardless of why. The law allows a judge or jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. There is a clear disconnect that, together with other evidence, might lead to reasonable inferences that there was no such preparation, or Oswald didn't order the rifle, or Oswald had no intent to shoot at Walker.

The evidence is clear. Oswald ordered the rifle and received it at his PO Box. He had taken pictures of Walker's residence in preparation for the attempt on his life. The fact he didn't do the things you would have done in his circumstance isn't terribly relevant.

This is likewise true with history. Historians are entitled to draw reasonable inferences, and sometimes their reasonable inferences are quite different. You seem to want to think that the LN narrative itself is a fact, when it simply isn't.

Yes it is. The assassination only happened one way and all the credible evidence points to Oswald and no one else. The fact you are having trouble figuring it out doesn't change that fact.

It's a plausible account of what occurred, but it isn't sacrosanct and it isn't without problem areas. I have highlighted some of the aspects that nag at me, not in an effort to read Oswald's mind but to try to make sense of what he did in the context of the LN narrative - or any other narrative that might more plausibly explain what he did.

In 62 years no one has come up with a plausible alternative to what the WC presented to us that explains the evidence. The typical path the CTs go down is to try to explain away that evidence. If you insist that there is a plausible alternative, you could demonstrate that by presenting one. You won't because you can't.

Ditto with his choice to assemble his rifle and set up the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the building where he was employed, having no way to control who might be on that floor and having little chance of escaping without being seen, captured or killed, when he could have exited the building with his "curtain rods" and set up in a location far less risky. Again, we are talking about what he did, not why. One reasonable inference might be "He didn't do that. He wasn't on the sixth floor." - which happens to be exactly what he claimed.

How is that remotely reasonable when his rifle, with his palmprint, and fibers matching his shirt was found on the 6th floor. The shells that were found in the sniper's nest could only have been fired by that rifle. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented just as they would be if he was facing down Elm St. and a bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle that had his palm and fingerprints on the bottom. Give us a plausible scenario that takes into account all that evidence that doesn't have Oswald firing the shots from the sniper's nest. I'm not even asking you to prove your scenario. Just pressent us with another way it COULD have happened.

I'm not saying by any means that the only reasonable inferences favor some conspiracy theory. I'm simply saying that when we look at the evidence of what Oswald did, much of it seems somewhat problematical for the LN narrative.

Your half assed attempt to read Oswald's mind doesn't trump the wealth of forensic evidence that he was the assassin.

There is no federal law requiring records being kept for sales between individuals. Gun dealers have been required to keep records of gun purchases since 1938. The fact Oswald decided to purchase a rifle via mail order rather than from a private seller is evidence of nothing. Trying to read Oswald's mind an any point in time is a futile effort.

We don't have to read his mind. A mere two days after completing his preparations for the attempt on Walker, and while living in the most gun-happy, gun-friendly state in America, he chose to buy a cheap rifle by mail from a dealer in Illinois using his own post office box and an alias when he could have easily bought a better rifle that would have been completely untraceable right there in Dallas. This is what he did, regardless of why. The law allows a judge or jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. There is a clear disconnect that, together with other evidence, might lead to reasonable inferences that there was no such preparation, or Oswald didn't order the rifle, or Oswald had no intent to shoot at Walker.

This is likewise true with history. Historians are entitled to draw reasonable inferences, and sometimes their reasonable inferences are quite different. You seem to want to think that the LN narrative itself is a fact, when it simply isn't. It's a plausible account of what occurred, but it isn't sacrosanct and it isn't without problem areas. I have highlighted some of the aspects that nag at me, not in an effort to read Oswald's mind but to try to make sense of what he did in the context of the LN narrative - or any other narrative that might more plausibly explain what he did.

Ditto with his choice to assemble his rifle and set up the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the building where he was employed, having no way to control who might be on that floor and having little chance of escaping without being seen, captured or killed, when he could have exited the building with his "curtain rods" and set up in a location far less risky. Again, we are talking about what he did, not why. One reasonable inference might be "He didn't do that. He wasn't on the sixth floor." - which happens to be exactly what he claimed.

I'm not saying by any means that the only reasonable inferences favor some conspiracy theory. I'm simply saying that when we look at the evidence of what Oswald did, much of it seems somewhat problematical for the LN narrative.

LP--

On the surface, it is inexplicable when otherwise sane and high IQ people gravitate towards a whacky CT.

The 9/11 Truthers really take the cake, possibly along with the Fake Moon Landing people.

Sometimes people "snap" somewhere in life, possibly due to stress, lack of companionship, self-perceived lack of status, etc. Some men and many women seem to "go batty."

On Griffin, all I can say his specialty was outside physics or mechanical engineering and so on.

Way OT, when I lived in California I noted billionaire types who married younger women, and then supported this or that "liberal" cause. This is almost cliche. Maybe Griffin hooked up with a Truther.

That scope on that MC rifle was mounted to the left side of the stock and it’s doubtful what range the scope had been zeroed at and when it had last been checked.

And when was the last time that Oswald  had shot at a moving target prior to Nov/22/63 anyway?

So a near miss to the right side of the limo is certainly plausible at the shorter range which requires a faster tracking adjustment by the shooter to keep the scope reticle or the iron sights on target.

As has been noted before, a professional shooter probably would never have chosen this scenario of shooting at a moving target from high elevation  when there was ample opportunity to have shot  at a stationary JFK  giving a speech from a position at approx same elevation.

A CT alternative might be that a BOP survivor   decided to shoot JFK in Dealey Plaza as a spectacle execution as revenge for his fellow BOP comrades being betrayed. This person perhaps was infuriated that Oswald was a pro Castro Marxist kook from having seen Oswald in New Orleans.