JFK Assassination Forum

Thank-you for demonstrating my point that “LNs have convinced themselves that JBC is reacting to his torso wound by z230 without looking at the evidence first - just by watching the zfilm.”

The Z-film is the best piece of evidence we have of what happened. We also have JBC's account of how he reacted after being shot in the back and we see him doing what he described in the Z-film. Your willful blindness and refusal to acknowledge what is obvious to most people doesn't change the fact he was shot before Z230.

This is not just any cold blooded killer that we know little if anything about. This is Oswald, someone that we have an understanding of, of what made him tick, of how he acted. I probably know more about his life than any other non-family member (that's pathetic admittedly).

I am fully aware of Oswald's life history. I have no idea what made him tick. He gave few clues. I can only guess why he killed JFK or took the shot at General Walker. I have no idea if Maria's refusal to reconcile was the last straw that made him go ahead with the assassination. He clearly intended to do that when he returned to Irving on Thursday night with a makeshift paper bag. Would he have changed his mind if she had agreed to get back together. Maybe. Who knows? I sure don't.

I have no idea if he had any plan for after he did the deed. I think he was surprised he escaped the TSBD, but that is no more than a guess. I have no idea where he was going or what he intended to do after he retrieved his handgun from his rooming house. Nobody knows what was going on inside Oswald's head because he didn't tell anyone and left behind no manifesto or any other writings that might have explained why he did what he did.

As Marina pointed out in that passage I cited, before making any major decisions in his life he planned things out, showed nervousness during that stage, acted erratically, e.g., beating her, having anxiety/panic attacks in his sleep. There's a record of how he acted. The defection to the USSR, the return to the US, the Walker attempt, the Mexico City trip. Simply choose one: the Walker attempt vs. the JFK assassination.

In the assassination we don't see anything resembling that pattern.

I think it is folly to try to make sense of a senseless act.

......................You are likely thinking of the 2013 nonfiction book, Phantom Shot: Eyewitnesses Solve The JFK Assassination by Mike Majerus and Jack Nessan.
The book claims that only two shots were fired that day (both by Lee Harvey Oswald), meticulously analyzing ignored eyewitness statements to argue that a "third shot" or a second gunman is a phantom created by early media errors................

Synopsis
For more than half a century, the JFK assassination has been shrouded in mystery. Many have been blamed, including the CIA, the Secret Service, Fidel Castro, the Russians, the mafia, right-wing extremists, and Lyndon Johnson. The true facts have been buried for decades beneath layers of distortions and misinformation. The solution to the assassination has always been right under our noses, hidden in plain sight. The key lies in the number of shots fired. The two official U.S. government investigations came to different conclusions on this issue, and both got it wrong. In the fog of war, the press got it wrong too, beginning with the first bulletin sent out over the wires just minutes after the shooting. A consensus groupthink soon emerged that did not reflect what really happened in Dallas. Nonstop reporting of inaccurate information actually caused witnesses to change their stories about what they really saw and heard that day. Phantom Shot analyzes the statements of key eyewitnesses, some of which were recorded just minutes after the shooting, before groupthink set in. Many of these witnesses were ignored by the government investigations. Their statements unravel the mystery of the assassination once and for all. Phantom Shot answers these questions and many more: How many shots were really fired? Was there a shot from the grassy knoll? Was Oswald the sole assassin? Was he part of a conspiracy? Was Jack Ruby sent by the mob to silence him? Did J. Edgar Hoover and others in the FBI know the solution to the assassination in 1964 and cover it up? Why did the Warren Commission ignore the statements of key eyewitnesses?, For more than half a century, the JFK assassination has been shrouded in mystery. Many have been blamed, including the CIA, the Secret Service, Fidel Castro, the Russians, the mafia, right-wing extremists, and Lyndon Johnson. The true facts have been buried for decades beneath layers of distortions and misinformation.The solution to the assassination has always been right under our noses, hidden in plain sight. The key lies in the number of shots fired. The two official U.S. government investigations came to different conclusions on this issue, and both got it wrong. In the fog of war, the press got it wrong too, beginning with the first bulletin sent out over the wires just minutes after the shooting. A consensus groupthink soon emerged that did not reflect what really happened in Dallas. Nonstop reporting of inaccurate information actually caused witnesses to change their stories about what they really saw and heard that day.Phantom Shot analyzes the statements of key eyewitnesses, some of which were recorded just minutes after the shooting, before groupthink set in. Many of these witnesses were ignored by the government investigations. Their statements unravel the mystery of the assassination once and for all.Phantom Shot answers these questions and many more: How many shots were really fired? Was there a shot from the grassy knoll? Was Oswald the sole assassin? Was he part of a conspiracy? Was Jack Ruby sent by the mob to silence him? Did J. Edgar Hoover and others in the FBI know the solution to the assassination in 1964 and cover it up? Why did the Warren Commission ignore the statements of key eyewitnesses?..............

There is no mystery to the JFK assassination. The facts have not been buried. They have been available to the public since the publication of the WCR. Those who choose not to believe it are only creating confusion rather than accept clarity.

My understanding is that in a plurality decision a majority of the judges agrees on what the final outcome should be, but not why. So they may write separate opinions as to why they agree with the result but explain their different reasons why they think that should be the result. (There may also be dissenting opinions, but those are not part of the plurality.) No single rationale commands a majority of the judges, so this is why it is not a majority decision. The statement "the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds" is new to me but seems to be correct. For example, a judge who thinks the case should be decided on some procedural technicality would be stating a "narrower ground" than one who thinks it should be decided on some evidential issue.

With a three-member disciplinaty panel, a plurality decision would require at least two of you to agree what the result should be (e.g., suspend the member for 30 days) but not necessarily why. Since you aren't concerned with the precedential value or "narrowest ground" of your decision, you don't have the same concerns as a court. Perhaps your club rules don't even require you to explain your reasoning - just issue a decision. If they require a unanimous decision, then three votes for the same result would satisfy that even though all three members had different reasoning. If they simply require a majority vote, then two votes would satisfy that even though the two members disagree on the reasoning. If the three panel members voted for exoneration, a 30-day suspension and a 60-day suspension, you'd have nothing and would have to hash it out.

I find it odd that you pretend to know how a cold blooded killer is going to act before he commits the deed.

This is not just any cold blooded killer that we know little if anything about. This is Oswald, someone that we have an understanding of, of what made him tick, of how he acted. I probably know more about his life than any other non-family member (that's pathetic admittedly).

As Marina pointed out in that passage I cited, before making any major decisions in his life he planned things out, showed nervousness during that stage, acted erratically, e.g., beating her, having anxiety/panic attacks in his sleep. There's a record of how he acted. The defection to the USSR, the return to the US, the Walker attempt, the Mexico City trip. Simply choose one: the Walker attempt vs. the JFK assassination.

In the assassination we don't see anything resembling that pattern.