Why should LNs be objective. We figured out a long time ago that Oswald killed JFK by himself. It is no longer an open question. Hasn't been for a long, long time.

Actually, Russo co-authored the book with Stephen Molton.

Anyway, your bombastic verbiage -- "forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist" -- suggests a severe bias.

Yes it is. A bias toward the truth.

You act as if this is a multiple choice exercise. It's not. There is only one truth.
You seem to have a low bar for whom you consider scholars.
That's right. DVP didn't have trouble figuring this out. It's really pretty obvious Oswald did it and there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. Given that the CT have had 62 years to search for evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the crime and have come up empty, why should anyone entertain the possibility others were involved.
DVD has lots of credibility and anyone who looks at the evidence objectively and applies common sense will reach the same conclusions he has.
You've always seemed to favor quantity over quality. It's reflected in your posts.
I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's shitty movie.
Keep clinging to that crap. It's all you have.
The HSCA was a cluster. The only things it got right were the things they agreed with the WC on.
The SBT wins by default because in 62 years, no one has been able to offer a plausible alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's. No one can come up with another explanation that tells us where other shots could have been fired from and the wounds they could have caused. I know you won't be able to. If you could've you would've.
The WC offered several possible scenarios. The consensus of modern LNs conforms to one of those scenarios, that the first shot missed, the second was the single bullet, and the third was the fatal headshot. None of that conflicts with the findings of the WC. The are a few nutty LNs who have come up with goofy alternatives but that is not the fault of the WC.

As for motive, no one can know for sure what Oswald's motive was nor is it necessary to prove why he did it to prove that he did it.

Why should LNs be objective.[?]

Here's one book that very few have read, but one that carries a ring of truth... by one of the three tramps... Chauncey Holt's book,Self-Portrait of a Scoundrel...

Yes.  But there is a difference between what the WC members thought and what they said in the WR.  They said in the WR that the SBT did not matter and was not essential to their conclusion.  But Commission counsel and at least 4 members actually thought it was.  My point was that despite saying that the first, second or third shots may have missed, it was clear from McCloy that he thought the first shot struck both JFK and JBC and was the only shot to strike JBC.  Arlen Specter also thought this because he concluded that Connally was incorrect in thinking he was hit by the second shot.  Here is what he said in Life Magazine in 1966:


All Connally had said is that he was sure he heard the first shot before he felt the impact of the second shot. He never testified that he saw JFK hit by the first shot.  So by saying the Connally was incorrect was saying that Connally was hit by the first shot.  That was the clear impression left by the WC until the HSCA in 1978 suggested that the first shot may have been much earlier and missed, based on the acoustic evidence (which we now know was wrong).

It was not until the HSCA used audio analysis to suggest an early missed first shot that anyone seriously considered that the first shot missed.  If you can find any serious publication prior to the HSCA report in which it was seriously proposed that the first shot missed I will stand corrected.


This snip from the WCR seems to me to be the WC seriously considering whether or not the first shot missed:

When COVID-19 emerged, I suspected its origin was a lab leak in Wuhan, China. I had a lot of reason, but that's another story.

At one point the Columbia Journalism Review, the industry flag-carrier, called the lab leak narrative a "debunked conspiracy theory." The CT'ers were small and ridiculed band.

Later, the lab leak theory became somewhat accepted as the more-likely explanation of the COVID-19 virus.

Lesson: Some CT's hold water, and some do not.

I suspect Charlie Kirk was murdered by a mentally ill lone nut.

And that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.

Actually, Russo co-authored the book with Stephen Molton.

Anyway, your bombastic verbiage -- "forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist" -- suggests a severe bias.

I, for one, would not need to have a "foaming-at-the-mouth lone-gunman theorist" put a gun to my head to get me to recommend a pro-WC book to a newcomer. I listed two anti-conspiracy books in my list of six books because I have enough objectivity and critical thinking skills to understand that it would show excessive bias and violate basic critical thinking principles to only recommend pro-conspiracy books to newcomers.

"Big problems," huh? That's curious because Brothers in Arms was widely acclaimed--it received positive reviews from scholars on both sides of the debate, from Anthony Summers to Daniel Schorr to Seymour Hersh.

You claim the book has "big problems" because your version of the assassination says that not only was Oswald the only gunman but that he had no accomplices of any kind at any point before or after the shooting, not even accessories before or after the fact.

This is another statement that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.

In other words, you'd recommend the report of a seven-member presidential commission, with a total staff of 27, that conducted an admittedly hurried investigation (fewer than 10 months), when we now know that three of the commission members disagreed with the report's key findings, but you wouldn't recommend the report of a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives composed of 12 congressmen (only three of whom dissented) and that had a much larger staff, that consulted a much larger number and variety of experts, and that conducted a much longer investigation (nearly 2 years).

If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.

And the HSCA's acoustical evidence, far from having been "completely discredited and disproven," has been confirmed by new research done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015 to 2018.

Furthermore, it cannot be repeated too often that the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to discredit the acoustical evidence (1) admitted  there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the Dealey Plaza test firing occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and (2) admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by the HSCA's acoustical scientists as gunfire from the grassy knoll, is in fact gunfire from the knoll.

Oh, boy. To put it more bluntly, you would cherry pick five findings that you like from a 734-page report and ignore the rest of the report.

BTW, as former HSCA staffers have explained, before BBN's chief scientist announced BBN's preliminary findings on the acoustical evidence, the HSCA had already found evidence of Ruby's significant Mafia ties, had already found evidence that the WC was mistaken about how Ruby entered the police basement to kill Oswald, had already found evidence that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, had already found evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination, had already found evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the assassination at a time when Oswald could not have been there, had already found evidence that Oswald associated with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, and had already found evidence that Silvia Odio's account was credible.

Actually, newcomers who read those books will quickly see that they contain plenty of "conjecture, speculation, guesswork," starting with the ludicrous and thoroughly debunked single-bullet theory (SBT).

Newcomers will also notice that pro-WC books markedly contradict each other regarding the timing of the shots, the timing of the hits, the location of JFK's rear head entry wound, the location of JFK's back wound, the trajectory of the SBT's alleged magic bullet through JFK and Connally, Oswald's motives, etc., etc.

Humm, could this be part of the reason that your view of the JFK assassination is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world?