Greatest challenge to conspiracy side; greatest challenge to lone-nut side

[Vince Palamara]

I mentioned this author and this book before, but I am greatly impressed with Oswald-probably-did-it-alone Robert A. Wagner's new book (which seems to have died out on Amazon-just 3 reviews and not-good rankings) JFK ASSASSINATED: IN THE COURTROOM- DEBATING THE CRITIC RESEARCH COMMUNITY. Wagner succeeds where Manchester, Bishop, Belin, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi, Ayton (etc.) fail:

He is a nice guy who CONCEDES ground from the pro-conspiracy side; greatly and genuinely respects several prominent authors and researchers from "our" side such as Pat Speer, Tink Thompson, David Mantik, etcetera; is NICE in his tone--no insults or snarky remarks; he DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY (!)

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was a conspiracy is the following: there is no evidence that Oswald's movements were controlled in any fashion on 11/22/63 to PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING AN ALIBI. As an open-minded author/researcher, I myself cannot think of a good counter argument to this challenge. I hope someone else can and will. I asked researcher Martin Hay, who (in my opinion) successfully reviewed and counter-argued Wagner's previous book THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK: PERSPECTIVES HALF A CENTURY LATER, to review his current book but I don't know if he will or not.

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was NOT a conspiracy is the high-on-the-top-of-the-skull bullet fragment trail, as both alleged rear entrance locations on the skull do not explain it away.

Again, Wagner believes Oswald definitely fired shots and probably acted alone, yet his style is so open-minded and refreshing (finally! An Oswald-probably-acted-alone author who concedes points! It's a miracle!) that he gets you thinking and rethinking things quite a bit.

That said, like Dr. David Mantik's new book THE FINAL ANALYSIS, it is lengthy and highly clinical/technical, so it can leave the reader exhausted.

[Jean Ceulemans]

7 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

.., yet his style is so open-minded and refreshing (finally! An Oswald-probably-acted-alone author who concedes points! It's a miracle!) that he gets you thinking and rethinking things quite a bit.

That´s exactly what this forum needs.  No need to feel offended just because of a different opinion. Some get nasty really fast, it´s telling...

[Bill Fite]

8 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was a conspiracy is the following: there is no evidence that Oswald's movements were controlled in any fashion on 11/22/63 to PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING AN ALIBI.

My 2¢:

If one is open to the possibility that Oswald was being framed then

• It doesn't matter whether he has an alibi (let's say witnessed being on the front steps or eating with coworkers at 12:30) because he's already on the hook for supplying the rifle (framed for the rifle purchase or purchased himself).  
• Then having Oswald accused as the shooter is just gravy.  The Castro-commie link is already there with the rifle purchase moving the focus away from any and all non-Castro-commie conspiracies.

 

8 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was NOT a conspiracy is the high-on-the-top-of-the-skull bullet fragment trail, as both alleged rear entrance locations on the skull do not explain it away.

The bullet fragment trail indicates a shot from the front - larger fragments travel farther.  

So then the challenge to show a conspiracy is to link the front and rear shots somehow or show more than 1 person involved in 1 or both shot sources.

Edited May 4 by Bill Fite

[Charles Blackmon]

9 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was NOT a conspiracy is the high-on-the-top-of-the-skull bullet fragment trail, as both alleged rear entrance locations on the skull do not explain it away.

 

From what I recall (I do not have the greatest memory and I do not have any notes or quotes in front of me) there is no way a full metal jacket bullet could have caused the top of the skull bullet fragments. 

Edited May 4 by Charles Blackmon

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

That´s exactly what this forum needs.  No need to feel offended just because of a different opinion. Some get nasty really fast, it´s telling...

This forum is like a Sunday School meeting compared to the JFKAF 'Richard Smith' etc. 🙄

[Jean Ceulemans]

12 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

This forum is like a Sunday School meeting compared to the JFKAF 'Richard Smith' etc. 🙄

Not my kinda thing the way that sometimes goes. Like people thinking that shouting helps, if they are happy that way, fine. But I´ll leave them at it.

[Denny Zartman]

9 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was a conspiracy is the following: there is no evidence that Oswald's movements were controlled in any fashion on 11/22/63 to PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING AN ALIBI.

Well, LHO wouldn't have known he even needed an alibi until after the fact. His assigned job might have been to surreptitiously or discreetly do something, like stand behind others and take pictures of the motorcade. Also, it sure seems like there's a case to be made that the power was off in the building during the assassination, so, again, his assigned duty might have been to turn off the breakers just prior. As I understand it the breakers were on the north side of the first floor, and there's more evidence that he was on or near the first floor during the assassination than on the sixth floor firing a rifle that he left no prints on and that expelled no nitrates onto his face.

[Denny Zartman]

9 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was NOT a conspiracy is the high-on-the-top-of-the-skull bullet fragment trail, as both alleged rear entrance locations on the skull do not explain it away.

In my opinion, the greatest challenge to those that espouse the Lone Nut story is to reconcile Oswald's behavior without alleging that he was also insane.

[Joe Bauer]

Everything is just too simple.

I always wondered why Oswald kept a pistol and bullets amongst his personal effects.

On the surface it appeared he didn't need one like 90+% of low income and working class people back then. A rifle was much more common due to the popularity of hunting.

Was a permit required to own a handgun back then?

Oswald didn't hang around criminal types. His work never entailed associating with characters like that or others who might harm him or his family. Why the gun?

Now Jack Ruby needed a handgun. Along with brass knuckles. He did associate with some dangerous characters.

One would think Oswald's rooming house manager Earline Roberts might have seen the gun in her occasional checks of his room if she was kind of snoopy. I assume Oswald didn't hide the gun well. His dinky room had what ... one small dresser? His one duffle bag in the small closet?

However, she told the police she didn't ever see the gun so it seems she did respect his privacy in that regards.

The first thing Oswald did upon returning to his North Beckley room after taking a cab there around 1:00 PM was to rush by Ms. Roberts without responding to her short comment, go into his room, change clothes and arm himself with his loaded gun ( with extra bullets ) and bustle back out to begin his fast walking journey to who knows where.

It seems obvious Oswald knew he was about to be in a life-and-death situation and he wasn't going down without a shoot-em-up fight.

Oswald's ownership of the handgun and keeping it close to his personal belongings tells me Oswald was up to things much more nefarious and personally dangerous than even Marina knew about.

IMO, he had "some" involvement with the JFK shooting. To what degree? Enough that he knew and feared "others" would kill him right after if anything went wrong.

And something had gone wrong with the shooting plan ( his escape ) and he knew it. He was running for his life.

I know this is a simple assessment... but Oswald did things simply, often "too simply."

Mostly because he was of the lowest income even poverty class, often unemployed and barely made enough when he did work ( minimum wage ) to basic needs provide for his family. A car and TV were beyond his income means. He ( and his wife and child ) got around on buses and simply walking? Even the Walker shooting was city bus transport.

Oswald needs Wesley Frazier and Frazier's constant battery dying junky car to transport him and his disassembled rifle to his work place the morning of 11,22,1963?

He wanders around in the building by himself most of the late morning and during the noon lunch break?

He then simply walks right out of the TXSBD building minutes after the shooting and jumps on a city bus? Held up in traffic he jumps off and hails a cab to get to his rooming house. His fare is 95 cents and he tells the driver to keep the extra nickel change from a dollar bill which is a highly unusual thing for the notoriously frugal Oswald.

He leaves his rooming house on foot ( again without looking at Earline Roberts or responding to her questions) and ends up walking a mile or more to an Oak Cliff main street movie theater where he then walks in without paying and once inside keeps getting up and changing seats enough times others in the theater notice his doing so. Soon enough Oswald is in a brawl with DPD officers and yelling "it's all over now" ???

The whole Oswald behavior action thing right after he leaves the TSBD building is too scatter shot to make any sense out of it except to look at it as a simple running-for-his-life mind-set scenario.  The question is ... who was Oswald fearing in this desperate run? The police or nefarious others who were part of the plot?

This isn't Ian Fleming or even E. Howard Hunt sophisticated spy novel stuff.

Peanut butter sandwich eating, 8 dollar a week room renting, Montgomery Ward dressed Oswald was no Savile Row tailored, brandy sophisticate " I'd say it was a 30-year-old fine, indifferently blended, sir... with an overdose of bon-bois", exotic beauty surrounded James Bond.

John Wilkes Booth had a better escape plan and several compatriots.

Yet...raggedy torn shirt wearing, bus taking Oswald manages to defeat an Army of armed security all by himself and take out a President who they are surrounding in broad daylight with the cheapest and least accurate rifle available?

Simple luck?  

Too simple.

 

 

Edited May 6 by Joe Bauer

[Vince Palamara]

Good comments! Thanks everyone!

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I mentioned this author and this book before, but I am greatly impressed with Oswald-probably-did-it-alone Robert A. Wagner's new book (which seems to have died out on Amazon-just 3 reviews and not-good rankings) JFK ASSASSINATED: IN THE COURTROOM- DEBATING THE CRITIC RESEARCH COMMUNITY. Wagner succeeds where Manchester, Bishop, Belin, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi, Ayton (etc.) fail:

He is a nice guy who CONCEDES ground from the pro-conspiracy side; greatly and genuinely respects several prominent authors and researchers from "our" side such as Pat Speer, Tink Thompson, David Mantik, etcetera; is NICE in his tone--no insults or snarky remarks; he DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY (!)

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was a conspiracy is the following: there is no evidence that Oswald's movements were controlled in any fashion on 11/22/63 to PREVENT HIM FROM HAVING AN ALIBI. As an open-minded author/researcher, I myself cannot think of a good counter argument to this challenge. I hope someone else can and will. I asked researcher Martin Hay, who (in my opinion) successfully reviewed and counter-argued Wagner's previous book THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK: PERSPECTIVES HALF A CENTURY LATER, to review his current book but I don't know if he will or not.

Wagner believes the greatest challenge to those who believe there was NOT a conspiracy is the high-on-the-top-of-the-skull bullet fragment trail, as both alleged rear entrance locations on the skull do not explain it away.

Again, Wagner believes Oswald definitely fired shots and probably acted alone, yet his style is so open-minded and refreshing (finally! An Oswald-probably-acted-alone author who concedes points! It's a miracle!) that he gets you thinking and rethinking things quite a bit.

That said, like Dr. David Mantik's new book THE FINAL ANALYSIS, it is lengthy and highly clinical/technical, so it can leave the reader exhausted.

First, could you close the loop, Vince?  How does Wagner believe Oswald probably did it alone, yet not believe in the magic bullet?  That's all Spector could come up with.  He's got a better idea?

There are good reasons they did not try to control Oswald's movements.

* They planned to kill Oswald before he could tell his alibi--including where he was--to a lawyer. Which they did that Sunday.

* They asked Oswald for his alibi in the first interrogation so they could set out to destroy elements of it. Then they tried to bury what he said. They didn't record the Oswald interrogations and everyone at the first session was supposed to destroy their notes. Hosty didn't.  He turned his over to NARA in the 90s,and Bart Kamp discovered what Hosty wrote down that Oswald said.  So that part wasn't fully successful.

* They didn't want to risk alerting Oswald to what they were up to. He might have tried to escape.  More likely, him being in the dark about the fact that he was being framed slowed his attempt to defend himself before he was killed.  Had he been able to give a lawyer his alibi before he was killed, the coverup would have been much more difficult.

* They planned to rely on their control of information to the public, particularly through the fake WC investigation. However, to explain some of Oswald's where abouts. they were forced to make up the story of Oswald descending the steps after the murder and having a second floor lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly.  Imagine if they had tried that one with Oswald still around with a lawyer to help his defense.

I'm sure in their pre-murder planning they considered trying to control Oswald so he would clearly match their story. But they decided against that and their decision seems to have been right.

 

[K K Lane]

The biggest challenge for LNers: the earwitnesses and Z-film show shots too close together for LHO to execute with the alleged murder weapon.

The biggest challenge for CTers: proving an alternative theory.   It's shocking to me that the CTers can't agree on virtually anything: whether the Z-film or medical evidence was faked, whether there was a second LHO, what the shot sequence was...    The absence of a clear CT consensus strengthens the LN argument.

[Tom Gram]

On 5/4/2024 at 8:28 AM, Charles Blackmon said:

From what I recall (I do not have the greatest memory and I do not have any notes or quotes in front of me) there is no way a full metal jacket bullet could have caused the top of the skull bullet fragments. 

I found one possible mechanism for the high fragment trail that to my knowledge had not been discussed before. It’s not much and I have zero evidence this actually happened in DP, but it’s worth pointing out at least.

Long story short, some wound ballistics researchers did a test circa 2013 where an FMJ bullet leaked lead fragments at the point of maximum yaw due to drag forces, and the temp-cavity expansion scattered those fragments across and behind the plane of maximum cavitation i.e. in the direction of exit. If the point of maximum cavitation occurred right behind the inner table of JFK’s skull, with this same fragmentation deal, it would have scattered a line of fragments right across the top of JFK’s head and also would’ve caused an explosive exit.

I suspect lone assassin theorists will eventually start claiming something like this really happened. It makes a lot more sense than Sturdivan’s bogus blood leaking theory and some of the other theories out there at least.

Still though, one gelatin block in one test study is not much to go on. I’d be interested in seeing more research on this though, any other examples of it happening, etc. Here’s the link to the study if you’re interested.

Temp Cavity Study

I’m obviously not a lone assassin theorist, but I’m curious about what’s possible, and what’s impossible from a wound ballistics perspective. This is one of the things I’m curious about. There’s so much crap and misinformation out there I like to start with trying to understand what could happen and work backwards from there. 

Edited May 6 by Tom Gram

[Kevin Balch]

Biggest challenge to Lone Nutters:

1. Short time interval between 2nd and 3rd shots.
2. Why a meticulous recreation of the SBT showed an exit wound from JFK’s chest.
3. Explaining why Connolly was adamant that he was not hit by the same shot that hit JFK.
4. How a shot supposedly missed the entire limousine.
5. How a sixth floor shooter escaped the building.
6. Why the back wound was found to be shallow.
7. Why a lone nut didn’t just take his pistol to work, wait on the Elm Street curb and do an Archduke Ferdinand style assassination.

 

Biggest challenge to Conspiracists:

1. How a shot from the right front entered JFK’s right temple and exited out the back of his head when his head was turned to the left and facing downward.
2. Coming up with a scenario that doesn’t require a cast of thousands executing a complex plan with numerous ad hoc adjustments made with great agility.

Edited May 6 by Kevin Balch

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Biggest challenge to Lone Nutters:

1. Explaining why Connolly was adamant that he was not hit by the same shot that hit JFK.

Below is high-definition slow motion footage of Zapruder film frames 215 through 340.

 

Given the following Warren Commission testimony, and Connally's movements in the film, AT WHAT Z FRAME DO YOU BELIEVE CONNALLY BEGINS REACTING TO BEING SHOT? (and NOTE that Connally was still holding his white Stetson hat in his right hand -- the wrist of which was shattered by the shot that hit him-- as late as Z-277]):

 

GOVERNOR CONNALLY: "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye. and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I Immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you. looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back..."