An interesting video

[Martin Weidmann]

I finally got around to watching the video. It is very well done visually, and he does a great job impartially presenting the known evidence and major points of controversy.

At least until the last half-hour or so when he goes completely off the rails into the very “Richard”-esque argument “I can’t imagine any Conspiracy intricately planning this sort of thing, therefore Oswald did it and we can just ignore all these discrepancies and contradictions to the officially spun narrative”.

For example, he just declares that Carolyn Arnold is “highly unreliable”, because…well, because she changed the details of her story. But it’s ok that Charles Givens changed the details of his story, because the way he did it does not make “conspiratorial” sense.

It’s the usual false dichotomy that says either Oswald did it just like the Warren Commission narrative decided, or there had to have been a conspiracy cast of thousands that pre-planned and perfectly executed every detail of what would happen not only that day but for months or even years prior to it. And the latter is too complex, therefore Oswald did it.

He made up for it at the end of the video...

[Dan O'meara]

I finally got around to watching the video. It is very well done visually, and he does a great job impartially presenting the known evidence and major points of controversy.

At least until the last half-hour or so when he goes completely off the rails into the very “Richard”-esque argument “I can’t imagine any Conspiracy intricately planning this sort of thing, therefore Oswald did it and we can just ignore all these discrepancies and contradictions to the officially spun narrative”.

For example, he just declares that Carolyn Arnold is “highly unreliable”, because…well, because she changed the details of her story. But it’s ok that Charles Givens changed the details of his story, because the way he did it does not make “conspiratorial” sense.

It’s the usual false dichotomy that says either Oswald did it just like the Warren Commission narrative decided, or there had to have been a conspiracy cast of thousands that pre-planned and perfectly executed every detail of what would happen not only that day but for months or even years prior to it. And the latter is too complex, therefore Oswald did it.

"It’s the usual false dichotomy that says either Oswald did it just like the Warren Commission narrative decided, or there had to have been a conspiracy cast of thousands that pre-planned and perfectly executed every detail of what would happen not only that day but for months or even years prior to it."

Obviously, there is no scenario or narrative that accounts for all the evidence/witness testimony.
But what do you think is the most likely scenario?
Not the Absolute Truth.
A probability, based on the available evidence.
As you point out, there is a spectrum of possibilities from "Oswald did it" to the "conspiracy cast of thousands".
But in between these extremes there are a multitude of possible scenarios.
Which one do you think seems most probable?

[John Iacoletti]

My opinion is that the available evidence points to a shooter from above and behind with a possible additional shooter from the front.  There is no good reason, given the available evidence, to believe that Oswald was a shooter.

[Walt Cakebread]

My opinion is that the available evidence points to a shooter from above and behind with a possible additional shooter from the front.  There is no good reason, given the available evidence, to believe that Oswald was a shooter.

My opinion is that the available evidence points to a shooter from above and behind

In a nutshell..... WHAT (Varified as authentic) "available evidence" would that be? 

[Zeon Mason]

@Walt Cakebread:

Walt, I’ve been revisiting your theory about the MC rifle being preplanted , wedged INSIDE of a pallet stacked with boxes.

Since there was no time for Oswald to post plant the MC rifle by wedging inside the pallet, then options are as follows as it seems to me in order of least probable to most probable (imo):

1. Oswald intentionally used and fired the MC rifle with a misaligned scope and left it that way dropping it between the boxes where Tom Aleya filmed it being lifted by Lt. Day. Weitzman was mistaken in his description of looking underneath a pallet and Will Fritz and Lt. Day simply failed to mention any details about gunpowder odor , or residue in the rifle grooves, breech or chamber of the rifle ,

2. Oswald pre planted an MC rifle and either knew the scope was out of alignment or somehow damaged the  scope while pre planting it. Oswald did NOT previously fire any rounds a few hours prior to planting the rifle .

3. A conspirator shooter preplanted an MC rifle not knowing the scope was out of alignment and  not firing any rounds recently from the rifle, (hence no mention by investigators of odor or gunpowder residue in the rifle barrel grooves or the breech or chamber)

4. A conspirator shooter INADVERTENTLY
 damaged the scope while trying to wedge it inside the pallet of boxes, and never fired any rounds thru it because of waiting to steal the rifle only about an hour before the assassination.

5. Same as no.4 except that the rifle was stolen 8 or more hours before the assassination and the conspirator did not think it important to fire any rounds thru it , and that pre planting the rifle would be sufficient to cause a diversionary investigation of Oswald.

6. Similar to no.5, except that the MC rifle was mail ordered by the conspirator, given to Oswald and had Oswald photographed with rifle in hand, then took the rifle from Oswald at some point in time prior to Nov 22/63 with intent to eventuallyplant it to set up Oswald, which opportunity arrived on Nov 22/63 from the decision on Nov 21st at the secret meeting  of LBJ that “After tonight, those  !&@$ Kennedys will never bother me again”.