Ron Ege

Gil, could it be that Lee was a holster collector?

Michael - well said. Due to what psychologists call frame of reference, which encompasses each individual's lifetime formation of their complete being, it can be extremely difficult to be always 100 percent objective in thought about any controversial subject - completely, consciously subtracting out personal bias, prejudice, ideology, etc. You seem to have a fairly good handle on it, IMHO. Be one liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., you're right. I would like to believe that everyone here wants to live where no tyranny, in way, shape, or form exists - regardless of its genesis on the political spectrum. Alienating anyone, is far from constructive in our collective effort to determine the truth.

Gil, thank you/ Admittedly, I am not understanding all. If the basis for LHO ordering the 36" rifle from the American Rifleman Feb. '63 issue was the coupon clipped for catalog number _20T751 (cannot make out the first letter/number on the attachment), why did the FBI construct the order using the C20T750 catalog number?

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows There are other sites with the same information/timeline. Seems like a "kinda-sorta" of a "stand down" - maybe? Wondering where that might have happened before.

The NYT would be little expected to not show bias regarding Trump. Admittedly, he is hardly among the Seraphim or for that matter, any of the lower categories - but that said, I do not believe that he sits at the right hand of Lucifer, either. In any search for reality, it behooves one to always "consider the source". IMHO, the overwhelming majority of those here, do such.

Oops; still learning this posting stuff. What I tried didn't work. Reading the exchanges/comments above, I was just reminded of the "Toilet Paper Lesson" video that a teenager posted of her dad, subsequent to the Covid 19 outbreak, when everyone was buying/hoarding toilet paper, for fear the country would run out. The girl's dad basically "did the math", showing that it would be impossible to use the amount people were buying/hoarding, and it was that that was causing the "crisis". He ended the video by saying, "Now let's all calm down." Anyway, I'm not taking sides - just sharing another view. You Tube video: Trump's Virtues - Tom Klingenstein. I do enjoy the passion for the subject - whatever side.

While maybe not being precisely exact down to the most minute technicality of their respective modus operandi, Ben has posted a reasonable view of the overall, fairly obvious similarities of the WC and the Jan. 6 Committee. The WC had a specific goal, and do we not doubt, so does the committee? I am just wondering if anyone here believes that there is a possibility that the committee's goal may not just be for "truth, justice, and the American way", but that it is really intent on attempting to further damage DJT to the point that he will not choose to run again or if he does run, he will be unable to win the nomination - or even better, maybe the committee wants to eventually make the case for criminal charges to be brought against him? Turned out (for many of us, anyway), that Phaedrus was right about November 11, 1963, and maybe we might want to consider making room for him again - re the Jan. 6 committee?

Ben, thank you - again. I do see you as a voice of reason. I believe some of us are leery of the government having become too powerful. If I remember correctly, the Founding Fathers tried their very best to preclude such from eventually coming to the fore. For some time now, looking back on our history, those of us who've been around a while (80, come Feb.), I do believe often times and with good reason, see things that just don't look right. Your five points, in part or all, are there for us to witness - when the "picture" seems "off".

Joe, I've read a lot about Oswald's alleged shooting at Walker, but I admit that I'm on the fence. You seem to say that you do believe that LHO fired the shot. If so, could you please share with me what may have "put you over top"? Thanks!

Ben, your reminders cannot come often enough. Many thanks for the repetitive perspective. "Trust but verify" - seems to be always - the way to go - no?

Seems Bill supposition could be easily viewed as implication by Gil and others, no?

And the same Mark Furhrman who was convicted of perjury, in the O. J. trial. Calls credibility into question, yes? Best-selling or not, his book is not the be-all, end-all - by any stretch, IMHO.

I remember my 1967 reading of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS; my thought then was how could anyone with even minimal rifle shooting experience - buy the WC scenario - even if adding a second or two.

Magically disappeared! 😋

Gil, thank you for positing the information as an alternative explanation of the "suspect's" actions. Goodness knows the JFK assassination abounds with possible nuances related to a particular, previously hypothesized scenario - that heretofore, had been unthought of and/or not proposed. As just one investigatory tool of many, I don't see the harm.

👌

All this, without even mentioning the added problem of reacquiring the target (JFK) through the misaligned scope, after working the somewhat stubborn bolt. Ever look at something through binoculars, move off the "target" just a wee bit and then attempt to very quickly reacquire it? Expert sniper, perhaps. LHO, hardly likely.

Should've read, " . . . it does seem . . . "

In his April 24, 1964 sworn testimony, Benevides said pretty much the same thing; " . . . After that, I set (sic) there for just a few minutes . . . " According to the dictionary, "few" cannot be one but can be as low as two. In his later testimony that day, whether that earlier, particular recollection regarding the time frame was accurate or not, it does not seem that his description of the shooter did not fit LHO.

Hear, hear. And assuming one could operate the bolt that quickly, what about the time reacquiring the target, using the telescopic sight?

Benjamin, your posts give much food for thought. For me, being around now for just shy of 80 years, that old Denmark quote too often comes to mind.

David - a most hardy, welcome back. I am new to the JFKAD but have been an avid reader for many years - my interest/reading/research into the assassination, having begun and still continuing since '66. Your passion for the subject is apparent and your counterpoints interesting.