JFK Assassination Forum

The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The only reason for believing Oswald could be innocent is a desire to believe there was a conspiracy and since there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, negating the findings of the WCR is the only path to that conclusion. Hardcore Oswald-deniers will come up with any cockamamie excuse they can think of to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Vincent Bugliosi has identified over 50 such pieces of evidence. It becomes a rather silly exercise when one has to invent so many excuses to argue for Oswald's innocence.

Conspiracy believers could argue for conspiracy with Oswald as the shooter. Such a scenario is theoretically possible. If Oswald had even a single accomplice, say a getaway driver who got cold feet and bailed on him at the last minute, you would still have a conspiracy. The evidence under that scenario would look exactly the same as it does with Oswald as a lone gunman, but since there is no evidence of such an accomplice or any other accomplices, there really isn't much reason to believe there was a conspiracy at all.

The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence. Such people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing things such as the impossibility of the SBT or a second shooter on the GK. If they had a thorough knowledge of the evidence, they would know the evidence doesn't support either of those beliefs. Some really smart people fall into that trap. Bill Maher is one such person.  I disagree with him about 75% of the time on political issues but I am still a fan because I find him both funny and smart. It seems obvious to me he was taken in by Oliver Stone's bogus courtroom reconstruction of the SBT, bogusly claiming the SBT was impossible.  Either that or he got it from a conspiracy book that has made much the same invalid arguments.

The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC.

This is what happens when a "reasonable and objective" researcher turns into a fanatically zealot. It's impossible to have a normal conversation with somebody like this. Kinda sad, really!

SMH. The extension road was not a road to "nowhere." You could use the road to enter and leave the railyard parking lot. The extension road would have been a perfectly reasonable way to enter and leave the parking lot. Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza? Have you ever studied a map of the plaza?

Yes, I have been to Dealey Plaza. Yes, I have studied maps of Dealey Plaza. In fact, I started a thread here about the parking area and Bowers' view, to wit: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4477.msg168316.html#msg168316. (Addition: I just reviewed that thread, which was predictably derailed by Royell's silliness. Michael posted his "reconning the area" claim there as the only reasonable explanation for the three cars observed by Bowers. Ho-hum, on it goes.)

Let's say our JFKA conspiracy has a gunman shooting from the picket fence or thereabouts. Less than a half hour before the assassination, we have three separate "recon" vehicles drive directly in front of the TSBD on the Elm Street Extension, through the restricted gate and around the railroad parking area in full view of Lee Bowers and anyone else in the area, including police, with one of the drivers openly speaking on a walkie-talkie. And we do this WHY? For WHAT PURPOSE?

Is our gunman hiding in a boxcar with a walkie-talkie, waiting to hear "It's a go, the coast is clear" or perhaps "Abort the mission, there are two goddamn little old ladies standing right behind the fence." He can't just see for himself if the coast is clear? He needs three recon vehicles staged ten minutes apart? Only to a 33rd-degree conspiracy wacko would this "recon" stuff make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. Yes, the Elm Street Extension would be a "perfectly reasonable" way to reach the railroad parking area, but that's not the issue; the issue is, for WHAT SANE PURPOSE would assassination conspirators want to do this? Take us through - PLEASE, TRY - exactly what a conspiracy would look like that requires three recon vehicles casing the area in the half hour before the assassination.

Because you are in the grip of conspiracy-think to a degree that borders on insanity, these vehicles simply MUST have some conspiracy-related purpose.

So are you saying the three cars "just happened" to appear to be reconning the area, that all three were merely "looking for a parking place"? Are you saying Bowers was just fabricating?

My guess would be that, given the confusing layout of Elm Street and the Extension, the vehicles probably just blundered into the railroad parking lot and wondered how to get out. Or perhaps they intended to park but then realized it was a private lot. "Reconning the area" -  - is that what I do every time I hunt for a parking space at Walmart or blunder into a private lot and have to figure out how to exit? I am somewhat suspicious of the level of detail Bowers claimed to recall, but it's possible and he did provide most of it in his affidavit. He wasn't intrigued enough to keep watching (he said he didn't see what the third car finally did because he was "busy") and, despite all this activity, he saw nothing suggestive of a gunman until Mark Lane connected with him and his story unsurprisingly got "better."

Did you actually watch the video? I ask because the video shows that Bowers would have had an excellent view of the parking lot.

You do not seem to have read Bowers' accounts.

Come on, booby. I posted the video after having previously started a thread about Bowers' view and have read and watched Bowers' accounts perhaps a hundred times over a period of many years. The difference is, I read and watch with a clear and rational mind and not one predisposed to find evidence of a conspiracy under every rock.

Everything you write is a joke.

Hence my suggestion that you should work on recognizing a joke.

Your extreme bias and lack of objectivity never fail to manifest themselves in your posts.

For most of my adult life, I wholly accepted the WC's conclusions. I believed that Oswald was guilty and that he acted alone. I changed my mind in the 1990s after I began to read books on the assassination.

The only people wearing "tin-foil hats" are those who still ardently defend the WC's lone-gunman theory.

It is worth noting, again, that numerous surveys have shown that 2/3 to 3/4 of adults in the Western world reject the WC's lone-gunman theory.

It is also worth noting, again, that the last official federal investigation into the JFK case, i.e., the 1977-1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), rejected the WC's lone-gunman finding and concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy that involved two gunmen and that one of the gunmen fired from the grassy knoll.

Fortunately, the truth is not subject to popular support. The HSCA's conclusion of a second gunman was FUBAR based on junk science that was never vetted of peer reviewed prior to its acceptance by the HSCA. It will be a cold day in hell before I let a committee of congressmen do my thinking for me.