JFK Assassination Forum

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.

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!

I'm sure you haven't and won't, but you really should read Phantom Shot. You seem so closed-mindedly dogmatic on almost every issue that attempts at discussion seem pointless. Not only are you a hardcore LN fundamentalist, which is fine, but only your understanding of the LN is allowed. Everyone else's perspective is dismissed as though it were simply unworthy.

The fact is, the WC itself acknowledged the possibility of only two shots. One of the three shells is an outlier, for which its dented condition is explainable either by too-rapid operation of the action or it being a dry-firing dummy; the dry-firing explanation is at least as plausible as the other, particularly since Oswald was known to engage in dry-firing. There just does not seem to me to be any basis for dogmatism or for dismissing the two-shot scenario as though it were impossible.

Since it's clear the dented shell is not dispositive, the question then becomes what the witnesses saw and heard. Phantom Shot deals with this quite persuasively. I am also struck by how many earwitnesses seemed to think the supposed first shot sounded distinctly different and how many eyewitnesses - notably the women along Elm - placed the first shot just about exactly where the three-shot scenario places the second shot.

The three-shot scenario may be correct, but I see no basis for any sort of dogmatism - particularly since there seems to be nothing like a consensus as to when the supposed first shot occurred.

My point is 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.

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.