Recent Posts
71
General Discussion And Debate (Any Topic) / Re: Am I the only one...
« Last post by John Corbett on October 06, 2026, 04:11:22 AM »what does that have to do with what just happened in Tenn?
It's a red state
Capital punishment cases are largely appealed through the federal court system and attorneys have learned how to delay executions not for years but for decades with appeal after appeal. Recent executions have been for murders committed 25 to 30 years ago. That is a ridiculous amount of time. By contrast, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock murdered four members of the Clutter family in November of 1959. They were captured and tried in 1960 and hanged in April of 1965. Five years seems like plenty of time for appeals to be filed and work their way through the appellate courts. Those sentenced to the death penalty should be given one bite of the apple in appealing their sentences. They should be required to file all of their objections to their conviction and sentencing in one appeal. After those appeals are denied, the only grounds for putting off their date with the executioner would be if they can present compelling evidence they were wrongly convicted.
Let's bring back the electric chair, the gas chamber, hangman's noose, or the firing squad. Let each state should choose the method of execution without concern for whether we kill these Barstewards humanely. They never gave their victims that consideration.
72
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: LHO and Cuban Intelligence
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on October 06, 2026, 04:00:23 AM »The second official investigation into the JFKA, HSCA-1979, concluded otherwise, and found the LNT un-compelling, or implausible.
There were a lot of smart and skeptical guys on the HSCA, and they were not "CIA did it" CT'ers, or head-in-the-sand LNT'ers.
They concluded likely LHO was not the only gunsel on 11.22.
I agree with their assessment.
There were a lot of smart and skeptical guys on the HSCA, and they were not "CIA did it" CT'ers, or head-in-the-sand LNT'ers.
They concluded likely LHO was not the only gunsel on 11.22.
I agree with their assessment.
The "LNT'" is that the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was the assassin and the evidence is non-existent that he had any accomplices. Both of those are facts.
73
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by John Corbett on October 06, 2026, 03:56:50 AM »Do you believe Arnold Rowland saw the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor?
I don't know if he did or not. I know that even if he did, that does nothing to exonerate Oswald. Oswald might have been scouting possible shooting locations for the best possible angle. He could have been contemplating taking a shot from the west end window after the limo turned on to Elm St. He had plenty of time to look over the situation before deciding what his best option was. I'd say he ended up making a very good choice.
74
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on October 06, 2026, 03:51:17 AM »I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.
The WCR wins by default.
That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.
What a Helicopter you are. I gave you 11 pieces of evidence to explain and your vague one sentence answer that Oswald was framed using his rifle hardly explained those 11 pieces of evidence. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators got Oswald's rifle. You didn't explain how they got Oswald to bring a long paper bag into work that day. You don't explain how Oswald's palm and finger prints got on the bag. You didn't explain why fibers matching Oswald's rifle blanket ended in the bag. You didn't explain how fibers matching Oswald's shirt end up on the butt plate of the rifle. You didn't bother to explain why Oswald's fingerprints ended up on the boxes that were stacked to form a rifle rest oriented exactly how they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. You didn't bother to explain how the conspirators ensured Oswald wouldn't be seen elsewhere at the time the shots were fired. Just a simpleton statement that Oswald's rifle was used to frame him, with no evidence whatsoever that somebody else had used that rifle to kill JFK. Just crazy stuff you have imagined as an excuse to deny the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.
It's easy to conjure up a vague alternative story to the one the WCR presented. The devil is in the details and you have provided none. The WCR's narrative addressed all of the 11 items and a whole lot more. If we were to give you a grade for your effort, it would be an incomplete.
75
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on October 06, 2026, 12:29:16 AM »As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.
I answered the challenge.
You asked for a plausible alternative explanation that accounted for your so-called list of evidence and that's exactly what I did.
The WCR wins by default.
That's what this is for you, isn't it - a competition.
What a child you are.
76
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by Dan O'meara on October 06, 2026, 12:27:05 AM »I believe you focus on silly stuff and ignore what is important.
Do you believe Arnold Rowland saw the man with the rifle at the west end of the 6th floor?
77
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by John Corbett on October 06, 2026, 12:26:44 AM »There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.
I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.
As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.
LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:
give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
Oswald was framed using his own rifle.
That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm
And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.
As is SOP for CTs, you completely fail the challenge to present an alternative narrative that explains the body of evidence and instead choose to use the diversion of attacking the WC narrative. The reason the CTs ALWAYS resort to this tactic is because they know there is no plausible alternative explanation of the evidence. The WCR wins by default.
78
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Miracle On Elm Street
« Last post by John Corbett on October 06, 2026, 12:20:11 AM »I believe you focus on silly stuff and ignore what is important.
79
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on October 06, 2026, 12:06:10 AM »Yes,
Arnold completely botches the description of what the man with the rifle would have looked like if he was framed in the window as he depicts the man with a rifle. Talking about port of arms and other nonsense. Once again the window starts 14 inches off the floor and the open part extends another 29 inches. Specter knew this and that was the whole point of the many different questions Arlan Specter asked of Rowland to describe the man in the frame of the window. Specter knew he was making the whole thing up. In a similar fashion he did the same thing in questioning Rowland about the caliber of the rifle being a 30 odd size six. Specter knew that Rowland had no idea what he was talking about and was making the whole thing up and drove the point home.
Rowland should have been playing the lottery that day. He is standing there blowing smoke up his wife’s behind about security people present on this parade route so that it did not turn out like the Adlai Stevenson incident, except there really was a guy on the 6th floor with a rifle.
In the same manner that Rowland caught the WC Panel off guards by announcing another person in the Snipers Nest, the attorneys and the WC Panel was just as surprised by Charles Givens stating he returned to the 6th floor and saw LHO walking from the SN area. They had no idea he was going to make that admission. The idea that was either staged or a made up story is not bore out by the reaction of the panel and attorneys.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the elevator.
Mr. BELIN. All right, just a second. I am going to get a plan of the sixth floor, if I have one, and try and have you point that out to me.
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
The chicken bones story is summed up by Shelley. There were different sets of chicken bones but only one had the pop bottle mentioned by BRW. Located right where BRW said they were.
Mr. BALL - Now, did you find any chicken bones up there or see any?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, I went up later on that day; I believe after we had gotten back from City Hall with someone, I don't remember who it was, one of the officers and they got them.
Mr. BALL - They did what?
Mr. SHELLEY - They got the bones.
Mr. BALL - Where were they?
Mr. SHELLEY - They were on the third--yeah, it would be the third window from the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL - And were they in a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Laying on a sack.
Mr. BALL - Laying on a sack?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; with a coke bottle sitting in the window.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other chicken bones anyplace around there?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, sir; that's all.
Mr. BALL - That's the only ones?
Mr. SHELLEY - That's all.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.
There were different sets of chicken bones
This is a falsehood you've been corrected on before. It's something you made up out of thin air.
There was one set of chicken bones on the 6th floor.
Studebaker is adamant about this specific point.
Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.
I know this won't make any difference to you.
I feel confident you will carry on posting the same falsehood even when the evidence proves you wrong.
80
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on October 05, 2026, 11:34:40 PM »There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. For any single piece of evidence, you can come up with an unlikely but plausible alternative explanation that doesn't implicate Oswald. When you have to reach for the least likely explanation for so many pieces of evidence in order to argue for Oswald's innocence, the argument becomes laughable. If you dispute that fact, then give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
1. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD.
2. 3 spent shells were found at that window a short time later.
3. A rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
4. The 3 spent shells were determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
5. Only 2 bullets were recovered from the shooting, both determined to have been fired by the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
6. A clear paper trail established that Oswald ordered the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
7. Oswald was photographed with the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
8. Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
9. Fibers matching the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested were found on the butt plate of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
10. A bag was found nearby the sniper's nest with Oswald's finger and palm print on it. The bag had fibers that matched the blanket that Oswald has used to store the rifle that was found on the 6th floor.
11. Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest. The fingerprints were oriented as they would be had Oswald fired the shots from behind those boxes.
We also have Oswald's action following the shooter which point to his guilt in the JFKA. but I'll settle for a plausible explanation of the 10 items listed above that does no conclude that Oswald was the assassin.
My prediction is that if you accept this challenge at all, you will do what CTs always do when presented the evidence listed above. You will attack pieces of the evidence individually, but you will not present a single comprehensive narrative that explains all of these pieces collectively. No such explanation is possible. If it was, somebody would have come up with it by now.
There is no single piece of evidence that BY ITSELF places Oswald in the sniper's nest when the shots were fired.
I've not bothered reading past this opening line as I've no doubt it's the usual WC arselicking nothingness.
You previously posted - "There is ample evidence that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30"
There is no evidence that Oswald was in the SN at 12:30.
It's good to see you back-tracking on this nonsense and throwing Tim under the bus at the same time.
As I had to inform Tim, your interpretation of the select pieces of evidence you choose to interpret is your interpretation. And that's all it is.
The assumptions you draw from this interpretation are just your assumptions. And that's all they are.
Your theory is your theory.
Jumping up and down and insisting it's a fact, like some petulant child, means nothing.
LATER EDIT: I couldn't resist and read your post.
I'm so glad I did or I would have missed the challenge:
give us a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanation that takes into account all of the evidence below.
Oswald was framed using his own rifle.
That's why the eye-witnesses described a man wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
It's why Euins described the shooter having a distinctive bald spot on top of his head which he could only see when the shooter tilted his head to look down the rifle. This would require the shooter to tilt his head to the left demonstrating he was a left-handed shooter - which Oswald wasn't.
Euins also failed to notice a telescopic sight on the rifle even though he described it in detail and recalled the shooter taking aim down the rifle.
Brennan, the only other witness who saw the rifle while it was being used, also failed to notice a telescopic sight.
Reportedly, Oswald stated he was on the first floor having lunch in the Domino Room when he saw Junior Jarman and Hank Norman. Thanks to the testimonies of Jarman and Norman we know the only time this would have been possible was after they entered the back door of the TSBD building around 12:23pm
And that's before getting into all the evidence demonstrating how the Warren Commission fabricated and omitted evidence in order to create a false narrative regarding what took place on the 6th floor before the assassination - the subject of this thread.