If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Lance Payette]

You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA

Listen Lance, I've tried to be as civil with you as I can but you're starting to lose it and I need to nip it in the bud.
You believe you're somehow hidden but your rabid Nutter credentials are starting to show.
As for you having "no emotional involvement", your interactions with me are starting to get slightly hysterical, bordering on unhinged:

"You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker."

"We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!"

"The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich."

You seem to imagine you're a free thinker but you're just a "type". I've dealt with the likes of you plenty of times. You come and go.
If you can't be civil don't bother engaging and get your Ooops, I'm a naughty Boy together, you sound hysterical.
And don't disappear when the going gets a bit tricky, take a leaf out of John Mytton's book and stand by your theory.
And stop misrepresenting what I post, it really is a loser's strategy:

"The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant."

Nowhere have I said it was irrelevant, it was key to framing him.
If you want a psychology to study try that of the rabid Nutter, you have all the relevant material to hand.

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.

I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.

My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.

Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.

[Dan O'meara]

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.

I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.

My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.

Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged."

I wouldn't do that if I were you 

I have no "theory" to "stand by."
"I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct,"

D'oh!

[Dan O'meara]

Two men were there and both testified that Oswald was NOT holding a coke, and Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line.

Mr. DULLES. When you, and the officer saw Oswald in the luncheon room. did any words pass between you?
Mr. TRULY. No. The officer said something to the boy.
Mr. DULLES. I mean between you and Oswald.
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Oswald never said a word. Not to me.
Mr. DULLES. What was he doing?
Mr. TRULY. He was just standing there.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have a coke?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. No drink?
Mr. TRULY. No drink at all. Just standing there.

Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.

Baker's signature on the affidavit is written in a different style to the same name on the first line

We can leave Truly out of it for now as he wasn't there when Baker first entered the room.
So let me see if I'm getting this straight:
You've posted an actual handwritten version of Baker's affidavit . It reads -

"On the second or third floor, where the lunch room is located, I saw a man standing in the lunch room, drinking a coke. He was alone in the lunch room at this time."

"or third floor" has been crossed out so it reads "on the second floor, where the lunch room is located".
"drinking a coke" has been crossed out and not replaced with anything.
Both crossings out have been initialed by Baker.
Here we have Baker saying that he saw a man standing in the lunchroom, alone and drinking a coke.
Then the "drinking a coke" bit is crossed out and initialed by Baker.
This tallies with Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in the room.

Your argument against this is that the style of Baker's signature at the end of the affidavit is different from the way he's written his name at the bottom of the first page (it's also a different style to the way he's initialed the bits he's crossed out).
Can you please explain how that is an argument in any way.
Can you be more clear regarding what you're driving at.
Can't you recognise this as a potentially important piece of evidence or is it just an inconvenience you feel you need to shut down any way you can?

And again thanks to DVP's site, here's Roy Truly's affidavit which also displays a signature in a different style yet the bulk of the writing is very much the same as Baker's affidavit.



JohnM

Hmmm...once again, what are you getting at?
That someone faked these affidavits? Is that the hole you're digging for yourself?
Remember, both affidavits were witnessed

[Jack Nessan]

Yes, I totally agree that finding three shells doesn't prove there was three shots.
Neither does the fact that over 160 witnesses described hearing three shots.
Part of the theory I subscribe to is that there was 3 shots fired from the Sniper's Nest. As you are suggesting, this isn't a fact and in the past you have made an excellent argument for only two shots being fired. It is not something I can totally discount.
The only mystery is where you got the two-shot argument from because I find it hard to believe you came up with it yourself.

Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.

It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.

Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.

Warren Commission conclusion: 

“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three

Page 111

empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”

 

You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.

A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells. 

It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.

 

[Lance Payette]

Euins' "bald spot" is certainly getting far more attention than it deserves. It seems to me entirely consistent with the gunman being Oswald. The only really salient point is that he most certainly saw a rifle being fired from the 6th floor window.

On 11-22-63, Euins described this as a "white spot," causing the person who prepared his Voluntary Statement to mistakenly have him saying he'd seen a white man. Euins clarified this when he testified before the WC.

His WC testimony, while impressively lowkey and unembellished, makes clear how little of the shooter he actually saw. To wit:

Mr. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn’t know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn’t get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn’t tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn’t even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald ...
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes. sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, right along in here.
Mr. SPFCTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

So we're talking about a free-floating "bald spot" 2-1/2" into the hairline of an unspecified head with unseen hair. Quite possibly simply a reflection on Oswald's distinctly high forehead? Very likely, I would think.

What did Oswald's hairline look like, anyway? Was Euins' description consistent with Oswald's appearance? It certainly seems so to me. There are umpteen images showing Oswald's receding hairline.

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczPk1fX9zgYrKVtOVp_HbXtyzRCfS0bUGWDjlLQ2mg2t7zHk35fSg5ev=w448-h300-s-no-gm?authuser=0

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczP9jKvDMaOrNqoYuZUkLvJ0OFt054LQ57bWQY6hvk7DqYDiXpq2g8Hz=w638-h694-s-no-gm?authuser=0

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczNiPvfe3Fv3g9klJmvjfK4tZ2h8VrkaOuJliYQ92DFBiLTF9kouWaA6=w1024-h798-s-no-gm?authuser=0

Sorry, hard as I try to at least "get into" CT-think, sanity keeps intruding.

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, don’t be so hard on yourself. My experience is most everything is a mystery to you.

It is not surprising that you would choose the recollections of 160 earwitnesses who thought they heard something over the statements of 60 + eyewitnesses who related what they heard to what they saw.

Maybe it is best if you just realize you are pointing out the error made in the original WC Conclusion, where the commission made a faulty assumption of three shells meant three shots and pointed the investigation down the wrong path. A path you are still on.

Warren Commission conclusion: 

“The consensus among the witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired.332 However, some heard only two shots,333 while others testified that they heard four and perhaps as many as five or six shots.334 The difficulty of accurate perception of the sound of gunshots required careful scrutiny of all of this testimony regarding the number of shots. The firing of a bullet causes a number of noises: the muzzle blast, caused by the smashing of the hot gases which propel the bullet into the relatively stable air at the gun's muzzle; the noise of the bullet, caused by the shock wave built up ahead of the bullet's nose as it travels through the air; and the noise caused by the impact of the bullet on its target.335 Each noise can be quite sharp and may be perceived as a separate shot. The tall buildings in the area might have further distorted the sound.

The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired. As discussed previously, the nearly whole bullet discovered at Parkland Hospital and the two larger fragments found in the Presidential automobile, which were identified as coming from the assassination rifle, came from at least two separate bullets and possibly from three.336 The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was provided by the presence on the sixth floor of three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds. It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three

Page 111

empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired.”

 

You seriously cannot understand this simple concept? They simply came to wrong conclusion. They should have completely ignored the earwitness statements and focused on the eyewitness statement made immediately after the assassination. A completely different picture takes shape. They mention media influence as a problem.

A simple review of information. The large number of eyewitnesses around the car and the SN both said there was only two shots. Only two bullets recovered. Only, legitimately, time to have fired two shots. The only way to explain the wounds is two shots. One of three shells exhibited signs of having been dry fired. The FBI verified the chamber of the rifle left a mark on the shells. 

It is so obvious that two shots are the answer that it is simply frightening. What can be learned about your intelligence when you admit it is the answer but refuse to accept it? The only reason the WC said there was three shots is because there were three shells found. That is it.

I'm happy for you, that you think you've proved the Warren Commission wrong.
Can you point me to the creator of this theory as I'd like to hear more about it.

[Dan O'meara]

Euins' "bald spot" is certainly getting far more attention than it deserves. It seems to me entirely consistent with the gunman being Oswald. The only really salient point is that he most certainly saw a rifle being fired from the 6th floor window.

On 11-22-63, Euins described this as a "white spot," causing the person who prepared his Voluntary Statement to mistakenly have him saying he'd seen a white man. Euins clarified this when he testified before the WC.

His WC testimony, while impressively lowkey and unembellished, makes clear how little of the shooter he actually saw. To wit:

Mr. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn’t know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn’t get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn’t tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn’t even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald ...
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes. sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2-1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir, right along in here.
Mr. SPFCTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.

So we're talking about a free-floating "bald spot" 2-1/2" into the hairline of an unspecified head with unseen hair. Quite possibly simply a reflection on Oswald's distinctly high forehead? Very likely, I would think.

What did Oswald's hairline look like, anyway? Was Euins' description consistent with Oswald's appearance? It certainly seems so to me. There are umpteen images showing Oswald's receding hairline.

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczPk1fX9zgYrKVtOVp_HbXtyzRCfS0bUGWDjlLQ2mg2t7zHk35fSg5ev=w448-h300-s-no-gm?authuser=0

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczP9jKvDMaOrNqoYuZUkLvJ0OFt054LQ57bWQY6hvk7DqYDiXpq2g8Hz=w638-h694-s-no-gm?authuser=0

https://photos.fife.usercontent.google.com/pw/AP1GczNiPvfe3Fv3g9klJmvjfK4tZ2h8VrkaOuJliYQ92DFBiLTF9kouWaA6=w1024-h798-s-no-gm?authuser=0

Sorry, hard as I try to at least "get into" CT-think, sanity keeps intruding.

sanity keeps intruding.

 
Good one.
When you come up with something a little better than "I know what Euins really meant to say" let me know.