Yet another Harvey & Lee factoid that doesn't withstand scrutiny?

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

This amazes you? Considering that:

• There is no credible, physical evidence that connects any suspect other than Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of JFK.
• There is not a single viable, coherent explanation for the assassination other than that given by the Warren Commission.

Yes, there is credible physical evidence. It's the police dictabelt. It was so credible that the current official position of the United States government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This is your cue to cite cherry-picked scientific reports "debunking" the dictabelt, but until you have written an American congressperson and urged them to successfully reopen the case and overturn their current conclusion that John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, this conclusion will stand. Whether they like it or not, it is the Lone Nutter's that are outside the official conclusion of the US Government as it regards the JFK assassination, not the conspiracy theorists.

A single conspiracy theory explanation for the assassination is not necessary in order to recognize and investigate aspects of the assassination that do indicate a conspiracy.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is neither viable nor coherent.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't viable because the autopsists at Bethesda reported JFK's back wound was a shallow one inasmuch as the end of the wound could be felt with the tip of a doctor's finger. That alone disproves the single bullet theory and therefore proves conspiracy. Furthermore, every medical professional at Parkland that observed JFK's anterior neck wound before the tracheostomy described it as one of entrance. The conclusion that a bullet struck JFK in the back, traveled through his body, and exited the front of his neck is not a conclusion that was arrived at by medical professionals. This unproven theory arrived at by WC lawyer Arlen Specter, a man with no medical training that did not examine JFK's body, and apparently didn't even see at the autopsy photos.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because the Commission could not determine Oswald's motive, nor would or could it demonstrate that he was mentally unbalanced. The best anyone can say is that he was a loner looking for his place in history, but no one can explain how he was going to become famous for a crime that he planned to deny. Oh, he wanted to "save" his political diatribe or other reasons for the public forum of a trial, as if being dragged in front of reporters for a press conference wasn't a public forum. The LN's believe that a man they consider clearly and obviously guilty of killing JFK was planning to shock the world by confessing to his crime at his trial. Please.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass by the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the same time Carolyn Johnston saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom, the same lunchroom he was reported as being seen in two minutes after the assassination in a state apparently calm, cool, collected, not sweaty or out of breath.

According to the WC' we are supposed to believe that Oswald, at 12:25 PM and in danger of missing his date with destiny, ran from the lunchroom to the stairs, ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner of the floor to the southeast corner, shot Kennedy and Connally at the last few available seconds (arguably when his vision was obstructed as well), ran a maze of boxes again to stash the rifle, ran again to the stairwell, ran down four flights of stairs unobserved by others who were also descending the staircase, and was then seen cool and calm in the same lunchroom that he was seen in seven minutes before.

It appears to me that Oswald would be exhibiting some sort of adrenaline reaction simply from committing the crime of killing the President in cold blood, much less running up and down four flights of stairs and repeatedly navigating a maze of boxes at top speed.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent because motiveless Oswald had no getaway plan, despite having over $180 dollars at his disposal, despite his knowledge of how to travel long distances and go to other countries, despite making a clean getaway from the TSBD, and despite boarding at least two motor vehicles. Oswald was allegedly travelling in a southeastern direction until meeting Officer JD Tippit, then Oswald started travelling northwest. Where was he going before he encountered Tippit? It was just a coincidence that Oswald was travelling in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, of course.

What single thing about Oswald's movements between his escape from the TSBD and his arrest at the Texas Theater was coherent? I wonder, if Oswald hadn't been seen entering the theater, would he have stayed for the double feature? Perhaps gone out for a burger and soda afterward?

But, as I said in my first post, there are dozens of examples of evidence pointing toward conspiracy, none of which will ever be recognized as such by our LN friends. Notice how Mr. Baker says "physical evidence" because he's well aware of the many witnesses who were ignored, intimidated, or said that their testimony had been altered. Mr. Baker is also aware that, legally, testimony is evidence. That is why Mr. Baker is careful to make the "physical evidence" distinction, because he is well aware that when the statements of witnesses and others are included, the evidence indicating conspiracy becomes overwhelming. I appreciate his attempt, but Mr. Baker isn't fooling anyone.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination isn't coherent. It posits a completely motiveless and sane killer who supposedly tried to kill right wing General Walker and left wing President Kennedy, had no getaway plan despite having nearly $200 and the knowledge of how to get out of the country, and who carried around ID linking himself to the murder weapon in one of his two wallets. You have Oswald's prints on the rifle not being discovered until after Oswald's death. You have the accused killer himself killed by another lone nut, Jack Ruby, a man who loved the Kennedy's so much that he was willing to face the electric chair or life in prison to save Jackie the terrible emotional anguish of having to return to testify in an Oswald trial, but who didn't care enough about the Kennedy's to cross the street to see them in person.

There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.

[Paul Jolliffe]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

 

There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.

"There's nothing coherent or viable about the Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't believe it.

Denny, you got that right.

Here's President Lyndon Johnson dismissing the "Single Bullet Theory" as nonsense with Warren Commission member Richard Russel (Russell: "Well, I don't believe it." LBJ: "I don't either.")

Why not?

Because, as Richard Russell pointed out, John Connally testified directly to the contrary . . .

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Paul Jolliffe

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 8/18/2019 at 11:06 AM, Bart Kamp said:

Donald Norton.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

Bart,

Are we to assume Malcolm Blunt found this in the National Archives? 

Where was it? (Was it part of the JFK records collection? What file or folder was it in? )

Do you have any information as to why Malcolm Blunt associated this article with the JFK case?

(I know all about the Norton/Oswald controversy. I just want to know where Malcolm found this, especially if some governmental authorities had it.)

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is neither viable nor coherent.

I couldn't disagree more strongly....

http://jfk-archives / EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID INDICATES HIS GUILT

http://jfk-archives / IF OSWALD WAS INNOCENT, WHY DID HE ACT SO GUILTY?

http://jfk-archives / WHY DID OSWALD DENY KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

http://jfk-archives / THE WARREN COMMISSION

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I couldn't disagree more strongly....

http://jfk-archives / EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID INDICATES HIS GUILT

http://jfk-archives / IF OSWALD WAS INNOCENT, WHY DID HE ACT SO GUILTY?

http://jfk-archives / WHY DID OSWALD DENY KILLING PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

http://jfk-archives / THE WARREN COMMISSION

 

Unconvincing, poorly reasoned tripe that doesn't do a single thing to counter a single assertion of fact that I made in my post. If you have points to make, make them, don't be lazy and just link to your own stuff, especially if it's as poorly thought out and unconvincing as these links are.

[David Von Pein]

46 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Unconvincing, poorly reasoned tripe that doesn't do a single thing to counter a single assertion of fact that I made in my post.

That's because you (like virtually all other Internet conspiracy theorists) insist upon totally ignoring the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt that exists in this case (which is, of course, a mile deep and six miles wide).

And you apparently also have a desire to totally ignore Oswald's very own incriminating movements and actions that occurred just before and just after the assassination, which are actions that are completely consistent with Oswald's (double) guilt.

In other words, if anyone really is searching for a truly unbiased and reasonable evaluation of the assassination evidence (as well as a reasonable interpretation of LHO's actions of November 21st and 22nd), the very last people on the planet anyone should be asking are the Internet conspiracy theorists. Because I learned a long time ago that those people have no interest whatsoever in a reasonable interpretation of anything with respect to the events that occurred in Dallas in November of 1963.

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

That's because you (just like virtually all other Internet conspiracy theorists) insist upon totally ignoring the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt that exists in this case (which is, of course, a mile deep and six miles wide).

And you apparently also have a desire to totally ignore Oswald's very own incriminating movements and actions that occurred just before and just after the assassination, which are actions that are completely consistent with Oswald's (double) guilt.

In other words, if anyone really is searching for a truly unbiased and reasonable evaluation of the assassination evidence (as well as a reasonable interpretation of LHO's actions of November 21st and 22nd), the very last people on the planet to ask are the Internet conspiracy theorists. Because I learned a long time ago that those people have no interest whatsoever in a reasonable interpretation of anything with respect to the events that occurred in Dallas in November of 1963.

 

In my opinion, you're ceding every point of fact I made in my post and have, to this point, countered none of those facts.

You post outside links to your own poorly-reasoned writing and expect me to hunt for the responses to the points that I made, which I find to be arrogant and lazy.

I'll say it again: if you have a point to make or a fact to counter, make it or counter it. I'm not interested in links to your regurgitated, self-edited arguments.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is not viable because the bullet in JFK's back was a shallow wound that did not traverse the body. The anterior neck wound was one of entrance, not of exit. The idea that CD 399 traversed JFK's body was not a conclusion arrived at by medical professionals, but created by a junior lawyer with no medical experience, who examined neither the body nor the autopsy photos. Those are facts. You can't counter them. And the single bullet theory ends there.

The Warren Commission's explanation for the assassination is not coherent because, according to them it was one motiveless sane person that could or could not drive, that did or did not want to be caught, that wanted to become famous for a crime he planned to deny, that owned two (or maybe even three) wallets, who just got lucky, who ended up getting shot by another lone nut who also just got lucky... in a basement filled with police officers who were guarding the world's most important suspect. Just random events of nuts who got lucky. Oswald's "escape" route going toward Ruby's apartment? Just a coincidence. The detectives mis-identifying the rifle as a Mauser? Just a mistake. But still, LN's think the case against Oswald is simple and iron clad, when in reality it is built upon a foundation of luck, coincidence, and mistakes.

Aren't LN's ashamed that they put their faith in the Warren Commission, a group investigating the death of the President that didn't bother to call Admiral George Burkley to give testimony? Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda. Burkley directed the President's autopsy. How can you, or anyone, possibly defend the Warren Commission's investigation while knowing of this inexcusable omission? Why didn't the WC want Burkley to testify? Surely he wouldn't have possibly said something contrary to the official story, would he? After all, this is a very simple case that was closed before Kennedy's body was cold. How could Burkley possibly say something counter to the official story, if it actually went down the way LN's say it went down?

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Because I learned a long time ago that those people have no interest whatsoever in a reasonable interpretation of anything with respect to the events that occurred in Dallas in November of 1963.

And yet you still insist upon "debating" them. Fascinating.

[David Von Pein]

57 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

And yet you still insist upon "debating" them.

Yes. In order to put a reasonable interpretation of events on the table. And that's something you're sure as heck never going to get from an Internet conspiracy theorist, that's for sure.

And as we all already know, every single one of Denny Zartman's tired and worn-out red herrings and "coincidences" that he has itemized above has been explained numerous times over the years in reasonable, non-conspiratorial ways.

But Denny doesn't like any of those "non-conspiratorial" explanations (of course), so we're treated to the usual CTer junk lists that feature anti-SBT tripe about the throat wound being an entry (despite the Grand Canyon of illogic associated with such a belief----i.e., TWO entries and NO exits)....Oswald heading toward Ruby's apartment....Oswald's "three wallets" (as a CTer pretends once more that the one seen in the Ron Reiland film is really an "Oswald wallet", which it wasn't, of course; and that fact becomes blatantly obvious since we know that no police officer bothered to say ONE WORD about this alleged "Oswald wallet" in any of their follow-up police reports, even though it's supposedly OSWALD that those same cops are trying to frame!)....etc.

Internet conspiracy theorists are experts when it comes to producing arguments and theories that Go Nowhere Fast! (Just check Denny's last post for proof of that.)

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Robert Card]

Lance,

 

What we’re doing here is inferring from circumstantial evidence.   It’s been pointed out monthly that we would need police powers of subpoena, and power to prosecute for perjury to arrive at the evidence you require.   We don’t have that.

 

If there’s anything that the burglary of the FBI office at Media, Pennsylvania revealed, it’s that there are two FBI’s, one group is the courageous crime fighters that we all know, the other is a secret behind the scenes FBI that is known to have committed multiple crimes, and was lead by J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover.   

 

If you don’t know how the FBI was dictatorially, and criminally led by J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover, then you have no business posting on the subject.

 

Same thing with the Jim Hess’ Facebook site, Fair Play for JFK.   Everyday, it’s ‘where’s the evidence’?   Anyone that disagrees with them, like Jim Garrison, then they are called, “XXXXX, frauds, and wackos with no credibility.”

 

But this reasoning from you LNer’s does not apply to J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover, and the Dallas PD.  LNer’s take everything from these two sources as it came from God, and call it ‘evidence’.   This ‘evidence’ never stood the test of cross-examination as in allowing Mark Lane to advocate for LHO before the WC.

 

Presidents wanted  J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover removed from office.   He committed multiple felonies in eavesdropping on Congressmen and others.   He had paid agent provocateurs on his payroll.   He knowingly framed defendants as in the Urschel kidnapping.   Please Google the FBI letter to Rev Martin Luther King, and tell me who the people with ‘no credibility’ are.

 

Three groups of men, and Lewis Rosenstiel’s 4th wife stated that J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover was a cross dresser, and you want to talk about ‘conspiracy wackos?’

 

Why have their been Congressional efforts to have J Edgar Hoover’s name removed from the FBI building?  I would be happy with adding his nickname i have for him, “Mafia Doesn’t Exist.”

 

I don’t want to get political because I don’t live in the U.S., but there have been nothing but problems from other FBI Directors like L Patrick Gray, and wasn’t James Comey recently fired with other FBI agents as well, like Stzrok?

 

Give it up Lance, there is no evidence from your side, either.  I refuse to debate the assassination any longer because the entire WC report, and anything the FBI or DPD had their fingers on is nonsense.  It should be thrown out, and we start all over again.

 

Lance, can you think of anything, anything at all, that would suggest that J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover has no credibility?

[Guest]

This thread illustrates why participation on these forums is pointless.  I find that every time I participate here, it ends up being a depressing experience.

It’s not depressing because Lone Assassin theorists are despised and subjected to ad hominem attacks.  I enjoy being the odd man out in places such as this – I thrive on it.

It’s depressing because it’s so predictable and mindless and such a waste of time.  It is, for any thinking person with a sincere interest in the assassination as a historical event, a complete waste of time.

On the “Two Oswalds in the Texas Theater” thread, I repeatedly posted challenges to the true believers to explain, even after I had conceded for the sake of argument virtually everything there was to be conceded, HOW THIS WOULD HAVE MADE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER in the context of a Presidential assassination?

No one even attempted to address this challenge.  NO ONE CARED whether what was being suggested had any foundation in logic, common sense or reality.

On this thread I posted a narrowly focused evidentiary challenge to a single, oft-repeated conspiracy factoid.  The factoid itself was unimportant, except to illustrate how conspiracy thinking works.

Before Jim even attempted to address the evidentiary issue, he and others had predictably attempted to shift the focus away from the problematical issue and to overwhelm the discussion with “facts” having NOTHING TO DO with the issue at hand.

When Jim got around to revealing the evidentiary basis for the factoid, readers could see (I hope) that the evidentiary basis was so thin and speculative as to be almost laughable.  No, it isn't "inferring from circumstantial evidence."  The handwritten note to which Jim points is evidence of NOTHING except the bare existence of such a note.  You are inferring that IT IS EVIDENCE AT ALL.

And yet the "two half bills" and "half box top" factoids are repeated as gospel throughout the conspiracy literature.  Authors like Armstrong, Waldron and Simpich build upon this non-foundation and weave a web of pure speculation that itself becomes conspiracy gospel.

Now I see, as always happens, that the thread has descended to the level of “What sort of fool could believe the Warren Report???”  Mental masturbation, pure and simple.

The Lone Assassin explanation does not hinge on the Warren Report, the HSCA Report (which reached the same conclusion, sans the dictabelt nonsense), Posner’s book, Bugliosi book, McAdams website or any other such item.  It hinges on the best evidence.  I haven't reached any of my conclusions “because” of the Warren Report, HSCA Report or any other such item but in the same way that I as a lawyer would reach a conclusion on any matter.

I do firmly believe that conspiracy theorists are driven by a distinct psychological predisposition to view the evidence in a particular way.  In most cases, I believe, conspiracy theorists are less interested in the actual historical truth of the assassination than in fitting the assassination into their particular psychologically-driven worldview.  This is why the typical CTer holds to conspiracy explanations for multiple historical events - JFK, RFK, MLK, 9/11 and God knows what else.

So, yes, I do believe that 98% of conspiracy theorizing is utter nonsense.  The theories do not square with logic, common sense or reality.  As I’ve dived into the conspiracy literature, including canards of conspiracy gospel that I haven’t mentioned (such as the Rose Cheramie story, one of my latest projects), I’ve been dismayed to see how lacking in evidentiary basis the theories are as well.  The conspiracy community, for all its obsessiveness, strikes me as fantastically credulous and lacking in critical-thinking skills.  I don’t see ANY of the self-policing and critical self-scrutiny that one sees in, for example, the UFO, Shroud of Turin or psychical research communities.

But anyway, have your fun.  Enjoy your hobby.  Believe Harvey & Lee if it makes you happy.  Buy into Cliff’s Irrefutable Solution or Lifton's stuff if it makes you happy.  Tell yourselves Jim DiEugenio and John Newman are reliable mainstream historians if it makes you happy.  You aren’t moving the needle of history one iota.  A hundred years from now, every history book will still say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK – because he did.

As for me, I’m done wasting my time on you folks and the JFK assassination.  In the unlikely event some bombshell of historical importance explodes, I’ll hear about it on the news.

[Denny Zartman]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes. In order to put a reasonable interpretation of events on the table. And that's something you're sure as heck never going to get from an Internet conspiracy theorist, that's for sure.

And as we all already know, every single one of Denny Zartman's tired and worn-out red herrings and "coincidences" that he has itemized above has been explained numerous times over the years in reasonable, non-conspiratorial ways.

But Denny doesn't like any of those "non-conspiratorial" explanations (of course), so we're treated to the usual CTer junk lists that feature anti-SBT tripe about the throat wound being an entry (despite the Grand Canyon of illogic associated with such a belief----i.e., TWO entries and NO exits)....Oswald heading toward Ruby's apartment....Oswald's "three wallets" (as a CTer pretends once more that the one seen in the Ron Reiland film is really an "Oswald wallet", which it wasn't, of course; that fact becomes blatantly obvious since we know that no police officer bothered to say ONE WORD about this alleged "Oswald wallet" in any of their follow-up police reports, even though it's supposedly OSWALD that those same cops are trying to frame!)....etc.

Internet conspiracy theorists are the kings of producing arguments and theories that Go Nowhere Fast! (Just check Denny's last post for proof of that.)

 

David says my assertions been explained numerous times in reasonable ways, but so far he hasn't explained or countered a single one. In my view, that's very telling.

David's interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not reasonable. He seems to be trying to convince us of the single bullet theory by using a simplistic and flawed logic based upon the fundamental refusal to believe that evidence could ever be suppressed, altered, or destroyed. He is also completely ignoring the experienced (at least in terms of Parkland) medical professionals who were there at the time and examined the President's wounds in person.

The doctors at Parkland knew the difference between an bullet entrance wound and a bullet exit wound; they had seen and treated them many times. In my opinion it is arrogant to try and imply that they didn't know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound and that your flawed and biased logic trumps their real world medical expertise. They saw an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck. I'm not going to trust David's simplistic, immature, and what I view to be fundamentally flawed "logic" over the doctors who had experience in seeing that kind of wound in person and who all reported seeing a bullet entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck at Parkland.

The doctors at the Bethesda autopsy examined the back wound and felt the end of it. It was a shallow wound. It did not traverse the body. The single bullet theory ends there. LN's have not and can not provide one piece of evidence that CE 399 did traverse JFK's body except with what I feel is immature "logic" that willfully rejects any notions that any evidence could be suppressed  - even if there are multiple instances where evidence WAS suppressed in this case.

And I am sure that my last post about Admiral George Burkley was going to go nowhere, because LN's can't explain it. I understand why they wouldn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. If I were an LN, I would be ashamed to have to stand behind the Warren Report as well.

To recap for those just joining us, Burkley was the President's personal physician. Burkley was the only medical professional to see Kennedy at Parkland and Bethesda, and Burkley directed the President's autopsy. Burkley was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission. And LN's think this failure of the WC to call Burkley to testify was entirely reasonable and that the WC did a thorough and fair investigation of JFK's murder.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burkley.htm

Quote

MCHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?

BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that.

What's the reasonable interpretation of that? Would it be reasonable to think that Burkley disagreed?

Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the TSBD at 12:25 PM, the exact time when JFK's motorcade was scheduled to pass the building and 5 minutes before the assassination, and he was also seen there in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:32 PM, calm, collected, not sweaty, possibly even holding a soda, two minutes after the assassination and seven minutes after he was last seen.

Is it reasonable to assume that Oswald ran up four flights of stairs, ran a maze of boxes from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the 6th floor, politely forwent shooting JFK or Connally in their faces as they moved toward him on Houston, shot the president and Connally with the only rifle ammunition remaining in his possession, while his vision was obscured by tree branches, ran another maze of boxes to stash the rifle, ran back to the stairwell, ran down four flights while not being observed by others who were also descending the stairwell at the time, and arrived back in the same place, not appearing suspiciously sweaty or even breathing hard, all in seven minutes? Is that reasonable?

Or is it truly unreasonable to even entertain the possibility of the explanation of why Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:25 PM and seven minutes later at 12:32 PM was that he was in the lunchroom the whole time.

That kind of thought enrages Lone Nutters. Their proof that Oswald did all that running and shooting and running was the shooting of itself. They know he did it because they know he did it. They know Oswald is guilty, so they know that anything suspicious that can't be explained in a non-conspiratorial way CAN be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, because they know that Oswald did it. It's this circular, fundamentally flawed logic Bugliosi relied upon.

Why did Oswald go back to his boarding house for his revolver? Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to have carried it into the TSBD with him when he went to work that morning, on the chance that he might have to shoot his way out afterward?

Why didn't Oswald go to the bus station, or take a taxi to an airport, or have any plan whatsoever after the assassination? According to the official story, Oswald gave up a taxi to a lady, and then boarded a bus that was heading back in the direction he came, and then took another taxi. I don't know if he boarded that first taxi, but that's TWO motor vehicles that he was able to get on, yet his very best plan for escaping after the crime of the century was to... go to the movies. Reasonable, right?

It it reasonable to assume Oswald planned out the assassination, but given absolutely no thought at all to escape, especially since he had over $180 at his disposal and a demonstrated ability to leave the country?

Is it reasonable for Louie Steven Witt to have had his first and only political protest of his entire life right next to a stranger with a handheld radio precisely in front of the president being assassinated. A specific type of protest/heckling that no one else seemed to have ever engaged in before, invoking Neville Chamberlain a man whose visual trademark was using a closed umbrella not an open umbrella. Is it reasonable to be suspicious of Witt when he claims to have had his vision blocked by the umbrella, when we can all clearly see with our own eyes that the umbrella was over his head at the time of the shooting? What is the reasonable explanation for his lie? When is being suspicious going to be appropriate?

Oswald didn't want to be tied to the rifle, so he ordered it under an alias that ended up tying him to the rifle. More luck, in this case good luck for the LN's and bad luck for Oswald. Is it reasonable to wonder why Oswald didn't just go into any gun store in Texas and pay cash for a rifle if he truly didn't want to be associated with it? If he truly, truly didn't want to be associated with the rifle or take credit for JFK's assassination, why did he pose for a picture with it?

How many times had Oswald posed for photographs with his weapons before?

How many boarders had Ruth Paine ever taken in, before and after the assassination?

I could go on and on, but the LN's hand wave it all away. Luck, coincidence, mistakes...

[Denny Zartman]

8 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

As for me, I’m done wasting my time on you folks and the JFK assassination.

"I thrive on this... so I'm leaving."

Best of luck to you on your future endeavors, Lance.

[Denny Zartman]

15 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The theories do not square with logic, common sense or reality.

Yes they do.

Logic tells you that an entrance wound on the front of JFK's neck means that there was a shot from in front of him.

Common sense tells you that a person can not run up four flights of stairs, run a diagonal maze, kill the most powerful person in the world in cold blood, run a maze again, run down four flights of stairs, all in seven minutes, and ultimately not appear out of breath, sweaty, or suspicious in any way when confronted by a policeman two minutes after pulling the trigger.

Reality tells you that a sane man does not kill the president for no reason. Reality tells you that a sane person does not try to get their name in the history books for a deed they intend to deny.

The WC met with psychiatrists and psychologists to consider Oswald's mental state, and after that meeting declined to bring up Oswald's mental health in the Warren Report. 

So, what you have here, according to the official story the LN's believe, is a sane man who killed the President for no reason whatsoever, who wanted to become famous for a crime he was going to strenuously deny, who had no getaway plan despite having over $180 in cash and the demonstrated ability to leave the country at will. And for some reason you think all this squares with logic, common sense and reality.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Believe Harvey & Lee if it makes you happy.  Buy into Cliff’s Irrefutable Solution or Lifton's stuff if it makes you happy.  Tell yourselves Jim DiEugenio and John Newman are reliable mainstream historians if it makes you happy.  You aren’t moving the needle of history one iota.  A hundred years from now, every history book will still say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK – because he did.

Mr. Payette,

You are CORRECT!  From 1963 to yesterday, a vast plurality of Americans have believed, and have always believed, that President JFK was killed by a conspiracy!

Can you name another question in American history whose answer by popular proclamation has been so definitive for so long?  Do you REALLY think we have been fooled?

Members of the CIA ordered the death of JFK!  I suspect you know it as well.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Jim Hargrove