JFK Assassination Forum

Yes, but that is also true with the SBT, as I have pointed out many times even when wearing my full LN regalia. Those who insist on the SBT pretend to a level of certainty that simply isn't possible. I was impressed myself by the pine board, but that really bears no resemblance to bone impact. The alignment of the back wound and throat wound and the holes in the clothing are a puzzle, hence the "bunched clothing" argument. ("They aren't a puzzle - they are IMPOSSIBLE!" shrieks Cliff Varnell.) Anyway, I'll await whatever the latest Orr-sponsored study says.

Below: Full LN regalia. There are several sellers on eBay. No, that's not me, for crying out loud.

Not to sidetrack this too much (but I guess I am anyway), what's interesting for me in the article is how reticent Lane appeared to be in revealing what Garrison supposedly told him. That's not how Lane operated.

My guess is that Garrison's "revelations" put Lane in a dilemma. Garrison believed that Oswald was one of the conspirators; viz., had attended the meeting where the assassination was planned, brought the rifle that was used in the shooting. That is, Oswald was guilty. But it was Lane's view, from my reading, that Oswald was an American Dreyfus. He was innocent from beginning to end (the middle too). He wasn't involved in any way in the assassination. Garrison's "discoveries" then presented him with a major problem. If he reveals them then his work defending Oswald is called into question. If he refutes Garrison on Oswald, says he's wrong, then Garrison cuts him off from any inside information. Best option: show a little conspiracy leg but not too much.

Thus Lane's shyness - not something he was known for - in revealing in any details on what Garrison told him particularly anything involving Oswald.

Just to add here: Tom Bethell was one of Garrison's investigators. He later left in disagreement over what Garrison was doing. In a conversation with Lane, Bethell recounts the following exchange:

"At one point I told Lane that there was a certain irony in his supporting Garrison, because he had supposedly been retained by Oswald's mother to defend (posthumously) her son. Garrison's case against Shaw, I reminded Lane, is contingent upon Oswald's guilt since Shaw is accused of conspiring with Oswald. Lane's reply was: "I have never maintained that Oswald is innocent. Nowhere in ‘Rush to Judgement," do I say that Oswald is innocent."

I'll leave it to others to conclude whether Lane was being disingenuous or not (me: he was).

Actually. studies have shown that humans are very accurate in recalling salient details.  Salience is measured by the proportion who recalled a certain detail of an event. Where more than 50% note a certain detail more than 90% consistently get it correct (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony):


Apparently, it does it very well. Over 80% accurately recalled three shots.  No one told them in advance there would be shots.
Why do you think memory is very imprecise?
One looks to others and sees what they recall. If they are all consistent then it is very likely accurate.
How fo you know if your interpretation of what Bennett said is accurate?

Yes, but at least they're pretty harmless compared to Trump voters.