Denny Zartman

Take my name and my words off your website, David. You do not have my permission to use them.

22 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Absolutely right. I think what is happening here is an effort to silence David and that is not a good thing even for his opponents. Some of the CTs want this to be a "sandbox" where they can float even the most preposterous theories (H&L is still being discussed almost daily) without being challenged. While that may be an enjoyable exercise for them, they presumably want those theories to be taken seriously by other researchers and eventually the public at large. So, people like David and Lance perform a service to everyone by refuting the more ridiculous theories and debating the enduring ones. Those serious about finding the "truth" should welcome such scrutiny.

This is a privately owned forum. No one has a right to post here except for those who own this forum. No one is saying that ideas cannot be challenged HERE. But taking content from this forum written by other people and posting it on another, separate website without their permission is simply wrong. It's against the terms of service of this forum, and even if it wasn't, it is still WRONG. And editing the content stolen from this forum and posting it on another privately owned website without permission is also wrong. Here, people can read both sides and both sides have an equal opportunity to respond, and that is FAIR. On another website, that cannot be done, and that is UNFAIR.

I welcome the scrutiny HERE. I welcome the challenges on facts HERE. I welcome the debate HERE. But I will not stand for my words and my name to be taken and used on another website without my permission. I am not creating content for any JFK website other than this one. Stealing my words and my name and posting it on another website without my permission or my knowledge is utterly and completely wrong.

If Von Pein wants content for his website, he can create it himself. He does not have my permission to use my name and the content I have created without my permission. This is not a debate.

I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG TO PEOPLE WHO CLEARLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

This is not a debate. This is not a game.

When I joined this forum, I agreed to have my words posted here - not elsewhere.

I resent my words and my name being taken from this forum and posted elsewhere without my knowledge or permission. The person who is doing that is wrong, PERIOD.

Stealing content without permission or compensation and then editing it to suit their own purposes is not free speech, it is thievery and it is misrepresentation. But the person who is doing this is allowed to continue stealing content from this forum, allowed to edit it in a dishonest way, and still enjoy the privileges of remaining a member. I'd like to know why.

As far as I am concerned , letting this practice continue is a violation of the agreement I had when I joined this site.

27 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why should anyone have to ask that their own material be removed from this site just because David Von Pein is taking snippets of  it and misrepresenting it?

Do we have any other options?

I have written one of the administrators here regarding this matter. I will let you know if I get a response.

It's disgusting and shameful that DVP is allowed to continue this practice and remain a member of this forum.

David, you're a thief and you should be ashamed of yourself. Create your own content.

Thanks for this thread  @Jim Hargrove . I was considering starting one exactly like it.

If DVP is allowed to continue this practice, as apparently he is, I think this thread should be a sticky to warn others. I know I would have thought twice about joining this forum and ever posting here had I known I would be unwittingly creating content for an entirely different website without my knowledge or permission.

Thanks @Michael Clark !

17 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

There is one massive issue with what you wrote above.

Carolyn Arnold said she went back to get a glass of water after leaving with a group of co-workers and not seeing Oswald then.

There is no fountain or sink/tap inside the lunch room. There was however a fountain in the corridor at least 10 ft away from the entrance of the lunch room. She could have never seen Oswald in there, which btw was off limits to manual workers. Besides getting a coke, they had no business in there (something even Marrion Baker said during his WC testimony, geeh I wonder how he knew that!?) Roy Lewis has confirmed this and so has Buell Frazier that without permission they were not supposed to be on the 2nd fl That floor was for mgt and office workers only.

Furthermore you would need to point out the buried FBI statement by Arnold is a fake which no one has been able to do. Then you also need to consider that the statement about her 'seeing' Oswald at that time (after leaving and going back to getting a glass of water, which no one else confirmed btw) roughly 15 years after the happening. Arnold became an issue, during the HSCA,  in the sense that she became known to the public as the person that saw Oswald in the vestibule near the entrance of the TSBD She ended up doing three interviews in quick succession and she claimed she did not look back, when Wiegman shows her turning and looking already at DalTex while the shooting is going on and the water thingy became part of her story to manoeuvre herself out of her first statement to the FBI

Definitely food for thought. I need to examine Arnold's FBI interviews and take a closer look.

To be painfully honest, my biggest problem with disbelieving the "second floor encounter" is that I find it exculpatory, not incriminating. But I am always interested in the most likely series of events, so I will try to study it closer.

9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It's fake debate.  In my book the only honorable way to respond to them is with ridicule.

I believe that you are right.

David, I'm curious. How does it feel to have written over six thousand posts, and to have convinced no one and earned so little respect from most of the members here?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

The dictabelt was a scam, Denny.  It's part of the cover-up. 

The HSCA knew there was a conspiracy because the physical evidence found with the body allows no other logical conclusion. 

That would have forced them to denounce the "high back wound" in the autopsy report -- a bridge too far.

So they ginned up this garbage about the dictabelt.

The dictabelt is not the point I am making. I don't care about the dictabelt. I have no problems dismissing the dictabelt. But it is not me that needs to be convinced to dismiss the dictabelt, it is the congresspeople of the United States. Every waking minute the LN's are not writing congresspeople and urging them to re-open this case and start a new investigation to get at the truth as they see it, is another minute that the LN's prove that they're not interested in the truth.

They call themselves reasonable. They call themselves logical. Some even call themselves lawyers. But they don't care about a new investigation to correct the record and declare once and for all LHO the lone assassin any more than they care about someone getting a fair trial. They just want to argue for fun. Well, some of them also want to mine this forum for content because apparently they can't produce their own.

You should be ashamed of yourself, David.

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Does the ignore function still work?

Yes, thank goodness. I was wrong to take some of the members in this forum off my ignore list and try to engage them in a good faith debate. It's a mistake I hope I will not repeat. Every so often I think "Maybe there is something they really can contribute that will help further my understanding," and every time I am disappointed.

It's a real shame, because I love my Lone Nut friends and neighbors. I value a loyal opposition, and will always choose to have one over not having one. It helps to have a strong and dedicated advocate for the other side of the story when searching for the truth. Too bad Lee Harvey Oswald was never afforded that opportunity. Lee Harvey Oswald never had his day in court, but that doesn't stop lawyers and other reasonable people on this forum proclaiming him guilty based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Let's face it. Most people alive at the time knew something wasn't right the minute Ruby shot Oswald. If you want to use reason, common sense, and logic, the only reasonable conclusion is that Oswald was silenced.

The official position of the United States Government right this very moment is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This is based upon analysis of the police dictabelt recording. Anyone who says there isn't even one piece of convincing physical evidence indicating a conspiracy is just flat out wrong. The dictabelt is physical evidence that convinced the US government.

Now... caution... my following statements may contain nuance... you've been warned...

One of the friendly LN's on this forum recently tried to characterize the activities of conspiracy theorists on this forum to "mental masturbation." I disagree with that characterization. In my view, CT's are are trying to solve and understand an unsolved mystery. In contrast, LN's are the ones endlessly arguing about something they think was settled the moment Oswald was arrested.

I understand someone having a problem with the dictabelt evidence. I do. But it is not me that has to be convinced the dictabelt evidence is wrong, it's the United States government. The LN's can spit their venom at anyone here that dares to bring up the dictabelt, but unless these LN's are spending as much time writing US Congresspeople urging them to re-open the investigation as they are writing on this forum, all their claims ring fantastically hollow.

I know LN's haven't written Congresspeople. I know they have no intention of ever doing so. But, that won't stop them from getting furious when reminded of the fact that the official position of the United States Government is that JFK was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They won't do anything but get mad and spew contempt. These LN's on this forum who consider themselves lawyers and reasonable people, who say that they're for logic, reason, and common sense, they don't hesitate for a moment to convict a man who never had a chance at a fair trial, and these LN's on this forum will never spend one second of their lives pressing for another Congressional investigation to finally put that dictabelt evidence in the trashheap of history and correct the record once and for all - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone!

They're not interested in the truth. They don't care to exert one iota of energy to correct the record. They just want to push their agenda on this forum. They like to fight and argue. They thrive on it... until the heat forces them out of the kitchen. One of the LN's here apparently mines this forum for content on his own separate website, without seeking permission or compensating others for their work. So, as much as I do appreciate my LN friends for their loyal opposition, engaging them is proving to result in diminishing returns.

LN's: The conspiracy theorists aren't moving the needle of history one iota!

Jim Hargrove: We don't need to. The majority of people already believe there was a conspiracy, and always have since 1963.

LN's: The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant!

lol.

Aren't you ashamed of yourself, David?

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

@Denny Zartman Comgratulations Denny, your work has found a place on David Von Pein’s site. Please let us know what share of the royalties you get.

Really? He's taking my name and my words from this forum and using them as content for his website?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

Hi Sean, best of luck on your book. Congratulations on writing it.

Here are my first thoughts, to take or leave as you please. you may have addressed these in your book already.

1. Knowing how unreliable other stress tests are, such as the polygraph, I hesitate to put much faith in the reliability of a voice stress test.
2. Any sort of public speaking puts stress on most people, much less the added stress of being in front of cameras, surrounded by policemen, and accused of murder.
3. As the designated patsy, it seems obvious that Oswald did play a role in any possible conspiracy. No one trustworthy (that I know of) tries to argue that Oswald was a completely innocent bystander that wasn't involved in some fashion or another. Therefore, a theoretically reliable stress test indicating some level of deception might reveal was involved somehow, but not necessarily prove he was a lone shooter acting of his own accord.

On 7/31/2019 at 1:44 PM, Lance Payette said:

You’re simply JFK assassination hobbyists who for some odd reason seem to derive pleasure from this sort of mental masturbation.

In my opinion, conspiracy theorists are working together and sharing knowledge in a continuing search for truth in an official history sullied by systematic deception. The lone nutters are debating a case that they believe was firmly closed at 1:51 PM Dallas time, November 22, 1963.

To me, it's crystal clear which side is the one engaged in pointless self-gratification.

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.

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.