The Shot Sequence: Evidence of a Second Gunman

[Guest]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:20 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Fragments from other guns were never found????? There are about as many stories and theories of extra bullets/fragments/shell casings found as the RFK assassination case.

 

On 12/30/2022 at 5:33 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Here is the square logic behind multiple shooters: Maybe Plan A was to have Kennedy be killed by a single shot from behind, but that didn't work, so Plan B was to use overkill to make sure Kennedy was dead and then worry about a cover-up later.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Plan c : if multiple shooters are proven, blame it on a small conspiracy rather than a big one.

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Not that Gil needs help defending himself, but I'm confused as to your point. Very few researchers of whom I am aware doubt Brennan saw someone in the window. But his belated ID of Oswald, at the urging of the FBI, after Oswald was dead and gone, is not credible. The WC as a whole, in its report, made clear they didn't exactly trust him. But Gerry Ford, in Life Magazine, made out that Brennan was the key witness. And this was garbage. 

The fact is, and shall remain, that the WC in particular and LNs in general, chose and continue to choose to believe certain witnesses (such as Brennan, Givens and Bledsoe) while disbelieving others (such as Adams, Piper, Rowland, Dougherty, et al) not based on their credibility, but on whether they liked what the witnesses had told them. This bias is common on both sides to this issue. 

Is this really in dispute? 

We all have our biases, I'm sure, but that's not really what I was talking about, although I did point out that corroboration could also be in the form of other types of evidence (than witness statements). Gil failed to mention that "Oswald in the 6th floor window firing a rifle" is based on more than just Brennan's say-so. Gil did cite the Z-film as evidence of a limo slowdown, but only to counter "arguments" from "people" about witnesses who saw the limousine slow down or stop being either mistaken or lying. Has anyone, apart from Gil, ever heard of these people denying that the limo slowed down or accusing any of these witnesses of lying?

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Here as elsewhere, conspiracy logic just makes no sense.

In this particular case, the report of the shots occurring - pow...    pow-pow - seems to me to be nearly unanimous. I could be wrong as I've never inventoried the witness testimony, but most of what I have heard includes the final two shots being in such quick succession that Oswald couldn't have fired them. If true, that makes Oswald the lone shooter the actual conspiracy theory.

I have enough firearms experience to know firing the MC in such a way is nearly impossible. Recovering from the recoil and reacquiring a moving target 100 yards away is quite the feat. I believe experts have said 2.3 seconds is required to rechamber a round after firing but would severely limit the ability of the shooter to accurately aim the rifle even with a 4x scope.

Probability comes into play here even if it isn't necessarily probative. It makes sense to look at other possibilities.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

In this particular case, the report of the shots occurring - pow...    pow-pow - seems to me to be nearly unanimous. I could be wrong as I've never inventoried the witness testimony, but most of what I have heard includes the final two shots being in such quick succession that Oswald couldn't have fired them. If true, that makes Oswald the lone shooter the actual conspiracy theory.

I have enough firearms experience to know firing the MC in such a way is nearly impossible. Recovering from the recoil and reacquiring a moving target 100 yards away is quite the feat. I believe experts have said 2.3 seconds is required to rechamber a round after firing but would severely limit the ability of the shooter to accurately aim the rifle even with a 4x scope.

Probability comes into play here even if it isn't necessarily probative. It makes sense to look at other possibilities.

patspeer.com has a comprehensive inventory showing the prevalence of these "pow powpow" statements.

[Bob Ness]

46 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

patspeer.com has a comprehensive inventory showing the prevalence of these "pow powpow" statements.

Ah, thanks Micah. 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

"Stories and theories" are not evidence. Of course, by the time conspiracy theorists have had their say, Oswald never ordered or received a rifle from Klein's, the BYP are fake, the rifle actually found on the sixth floor was a Mauser, the DPD destroyed inconvenient fragments, yada, yada. I'm talking about the real world.

That's certainly conspiracy logic. You go to all the trouble to plant a pro-Castro patsy and his rifle behind JFK - but what the hell, if he misses we'll have another gunman in front and come up with a cover-up story later. Unless you don't think Oswald hit anything, how would the gunman in front know in an instant that the shot to the back "didn't work"? Why would the back-up gunman not be located behind JFK with his very own 6.5 rifle, to make his shot at least plausibly explainable as coming from the patsy? There were plenty of locations far safer than the grassy knoll. What if the patsy accomplishes his mission, but your dumbass back-up gunman is seen and arrested, thereby blowing the entire project? If you actually want your patsy to accomplish his mission, why not equip him with a more plausible assassination rifle and scope? (I bought a really nice Remington 30.06 with a very good 4X Weaver scope for $75 in 1975.) If you just want JFK dead and are willing to concoct cover-up stories later, why screw with a patsy at all?

Here as elsewhere, conspiracy logic just makes no sense.

FWIW, I accept the majority of the "official" story. But there are huge holes that should be acknowledged by the Oswald-did-it crowd that strangely, are not. Here's one. Oswald's rifle was found in the building. Okay, I can accept that. Three shells from this rifle were found on the floor. Okay, I can accept that. So how did he get the rifle in the building? 

One witness said he carried a package that was far too small to hold the rifle. Another said he saw him come in the building and he didn't have a package at all. That's weird. Well, okay, wrapping paper was found on the sixth floor. But was it? Several members of the DPD claimed to find it, and they claimed to find it in different locations. And not only that, none of the first men on the scene saw it. Bizarre. Well, Oswald's prints were found on this wrapping paper. But, hold on, the WC lied about the location of these prints to sell that Oswald left these prints while carrying the bag into the building. Hmmm... Around this point, reasonable people should smell a rat, IMO.

But it gets worse. Oswald is purported to have told Frazier the package he had held curtain rods. Okay. And the package Frazier described was exactly the size of a package of curtain rods. Okay. And Frazier's sister confirmed this when the package was re-created and shown her by the FBI. Okay. And Oswald's rooming house had a damaged curtain rod on the afternoon of the shooting, that the WC never looked into. Wait, huh? And Ruth and Michael Paine believed they had a package of curtain rods, that was missing when they checked their garage months later, which led them to claim they'd been mistaken and that there was no package of curtain rods in their garage, only loose curtain rods. Okay. And then it turns out that the SS gave some curtain rods to the DPD to be checked for fingerprints BEFORE the loose curtain rods were retrieved from the Paine's garage. 

So that's a hole, right? The inability of most LNs to acknowledge obvious holes in the case against Oswald is a problem, IMO, to the extent even that they have no business complaining about "conspiracy logic". I mean, if "no conspiracy" logic is just as biased and addled as "conspiracy logic", what's the point? 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

But how would the gunman know which one of the entourage was JFK? Unless some kind of live communication was involved, a gunman might need to use a scope to spot which exact person was John.

Sorry, Micah. I am not sure I understand the question entirely. What is it that you are trying to get at? 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

"Stories and theories" are not evidence. Of course, by the time conspiracy theorists have had their say, Oswald never ordered or received a rifle from Klein's, the BYP are fake, the rifle actually found on the sixth floor was a Mauser, the DPD destroyed inconvenient fragments, yada, yada. I'm talking about the real world.

.......

I'm sorry, but the entire "Oswald did it" stance requires belief in a so far unproven theory from a man with no expertise in the field who was nowhere near the scene, that CE399 was able to do what no other bullet has done before or since. Which ballistics expert from Edgewood or the FBI or SS or CIA or anywhere else, conducted tests and then came to Specter and said, "THIS is what happened." In fact people who worked for those bodies said it was impossible. But we have to listen to the lawyer, not the experts, because his THEORY is what is going to get written down, because... HE is in charge of what gets written down. And HE is in charge of what ACTUAL evidence gets left out of the report that might show his theory to be nonsense. 

You said that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, which is a gross over simplification of that notion. Sure, one witness of a specific aspect of an incident is probably not great as far as proving something goes. But as you add more, and more, and more corroborating witnesses, that swings wildly the other way. When you have a consensus saying the same thing, then you tend to have a pretty stable and reliable case. Such as with how many people in Dealey Plaza agreed that the final two shots came right on top of one another, you don't discount that weight of evidence as unreliable unless you either want it to be unreliable, or need it to be.

[Gil Jesus]

13 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

"Stories and theories" are not evidence. Of course, by the time conspiracy theorists have had their say, Oswald never ordered or received a rifle from Klein's, the BYP are fake, the rifle actually found on the sixth floor was a Mauser, the DPD destroyed inconvenient fragments, yada, yada. I'm talking about the real world.

 

Did you know that in the "real world" the rifle tests proved that the Depository rifle was not accurate enough to be the murder weapon ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" Cmdr. James Humes moved the "back wound" up to the base of the neck ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" Doctors are not harrassed to change their opinions of wounds ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" police employees are not used in police lineups ?

https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

 

Did you know that in the "real world" FBI reports don't lie about what the witnesses said ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/proof-fbi-lied.mp4

 

Did you know that in the "real world" witnesses are not ignored by Federal Investigations ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4

 

yada yada indeed

 

 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

On 12/31/2022 at 12:31 AM, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I accept the majority of the "official" story. But there are huge holes that should be acknowledged by the Oswald-did-it crowd that strangely, are not. Here's one. Oswald's rifle was found in the building. Okay, I can accept that. Three shells from this rifle were found on the floor. Okay, I can accept that. So how did he get the rifle in the building? 

One witness said he carried a package that was far too small to hold the rifle. Another said he saw him come in the building and he didn't have a package at all. That's weird. Well, okay, wrapping paper was found on the sixth floor. But was it? Several members of the DPD claimed to find it, and they claimed to find it in different locations. And not only that, none of the first men on the scene saw it. Bizarre. Well, Oswald's prints were found on this wrapping paper. But, hold on, the WC lied about the location of these prints to sell that Oswald left these prints while carrying the bag into the building. Hmmm... Around this point, reasonable people should smell a rat, IMO.

But it gets worse. Oswald is purported to have told Frazier the package he had held curtain rods. Okay. And the package Frazier described was exactly the size of a package of curtain rods. Okay. And Frazier's sister confirmed this when the package was re-created and shown her by the FBI. Okay. And Oswald's rooming house had a damaged curtain rod on the afternoon of the shooting, that the WC never looked into. Wait, huh? And Ruth and Michael Paine believed they had a package of curtain rods, that was missing when they checked their garage months later, which led them to claim they'd been mistaken and that there was no package of curtain rods in their garage, only loose curtain rods. Okay. And then it turns out that the SS gave some curtain rods to the DPD to be checked for fingerprints BEFORE the loose curtain rods were retrieved from the Paine's garage. 

So that's a hole, right? The inability of most LNs to acknowledge obvious holes in the case against Oswald is a problem, IMO, to the extent even that they have no business complaining about "conspiracy logic". I mean, if "no conspiracy" logic is just as biased and addled as "conspiracy logic", what's the point? 

 

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Micah Mileto]

14 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

But how would the gunman know which one of the entourage was JFK? Unless some kind of live communication was involved, a gunman might need to use a scope to spot which exact person was John.

How is a shooter going to tell which one was JFK by staying far back from the window?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

How is a shooter going to tell which one was JFK by staying far back from the window?

He has a scope, Micah. If we suppose shots came from the said window, there is a perfect view of the motorcade turning onto Houston (probably a better shot). If alone, he has to move a few steps left to a shooting position. That’s without intel. 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

If Oswald is being interrogated by Police Officers, and he HAS taken the curtain rods without Ruth Paine's permission... and given the treatment he's had from said Police Officers so far that day... denial of ANY crime in a room full of these thugs would come as a surprise to anyone?

There is no tape, no notary, or court recorder present, and no one is taking notes. If the words "I'm guilty" "I did it" "I broke the law" whatever turn of phrase they get out of him, confirming guilt of ANYTHING escape his lips in that room... Jack Ruby would have had to get his skates on to keep up with the whirlwind that would have followed. 

And that package???

The argument that "It might not have been what the only two witnesses who saw it, said it was..." is the general evidence that Oswald carried a rifle to work that day (with NO other witnesses suggesting the possibility of it being anything other than SMALLER than what those two witnesses said it was)

Sorry, the evidence suggests there was no rifle in Oswald's possession at that time. But OK... they MAY have been wrong... OK... But someone who says that they were wrong HAS to give us ANYTHING that shows how and why Randle and Frazier WERE wrong, without conditional hedge-words like "maybe" or "possibly" and without going all "Wesley Liebeler" and saying "..because we know he did it."

The forensic analysis of the paper bag that was found, somewhere... by someone... made it clear the bag was made on either 21st or 22nd. Since only one person that I know of has EVER asked Frazier whether Oswald carried a big sheet of paper home with him on the Thursday, (and it wasn't the Warren Commission), and the answer was "No, he didn't" that will never be evidence for the record... 

But what sort of investigation cites two (and the ONLY two) witnesses for the trustworthy establishing of the existence of a "package" as "evidence" in a case, but considers them "Unreliable" as to the description of said package? Despite the consistent and rather strong-willed insistence by both parties as to the accuracy of said descriptions and NO evidence that states how or why they were mistaken, beyond the fact that their testimony harms the prosecutions "Theory"?