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

[Charles Blackmon]

10 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

 

1. 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.

I understand what you are saying but the "cast of thousands" (not really thousands) might apply more for the coverup and enforcement of the lone nut position versus the number of plotters/killers. The coverup seems to have been necessitated in part because of the very clever WWIII virus. Just my opinion, subject to change.

[Kevin Balch]

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

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..."

 

I think Connally is hit around Z-290. He is saying “Oh no!” as he is turning around which has gotten Jackie Kennedy’s attention. He would not able to speak for a few seconds as the shot likely knocked the wind out of him.

[Charles Blackmon]

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

 

Still though, one gelatin block in one test study is not much to go on.

No its not. Maybe somebody who has really dug into this subject can offer a "High fragment trail" thread.

Edited May 6 by Charles Blackmon

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I think Connally is hit around Z-290. He is saying “Oh no!” as he is turning around which has gotten Jackie Kennedy’s attention. He would not able to speak for a few seconds as the shot likely knocked the wind out of him.

I agree with you, but the single-bullet theory version of events has Connally getting hit at Z-223/224 (particularly as advocated by Posner), and Connally himself -- before the 1998 public release of MPI's digitized "Images of an Assassination" Zapruder film which exceptionally informed researchers mark as the demise of the single-bullet theory -- basing his view on an inferior projected copy of the Zapruder film, estimated he was struck at Z-230. Just goes to show the ridiculousness of anti-conspiracy rationalizations like the single-bullet theory, doesn't it?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I agree with you, but the single-bullet theory version of events has Connally getting hit at Z-223/224 (particularly as advocated by Posner), and Connally himself -- before the 1998 public release of MPI's digitized "Images of an Assassination" Zapruder film which exceptionally informed researchers mark as the demise of the single-bullet theory -- basing his view on an inferior projected copy of the Zapruder film, estimated he was struck at Z-230. Just goes to show the ridiculousness of anti-conspiracy rationalizations like the single-bullet theory, doesn't it?

 

Right.

In his HSCA testimony, Connally reiterated that he was "pushed forward" by the bullet that struck him. This makes sense, as the bullet traversed one of his ribs, taking out four to five inches of it, and meeting resistance the whole way, unlike a flesh wound. 

Connally is pushed forward ~Z-295. Obviously, JFK is struck a Z-313. At 18 frames per second....

We know from Connally's shirt that day that the bullet that struck him was not tumbling, as there is a small round bullet hole in rear of the shirt. 

Connally being struck at Z-295 and JFK at Z-313 also lines up with numerous witness statement of a "bang.....bang-bang" cadence to the shots. 

I conclude Connally was struck at Z-295, and JFK at Z-313, and that rules out a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle as the sole perp of the JFKA-Connally shootings. 

[Johnny Cairns]

On 5/4/2024 at 5:21 AM, 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.

Sylvia Meagher summed this up perfectly in an interview she conducted in 1967. 
 

Interviewer. Do you feel Mrs Meagher, if indeed Oswald was not doing the things in the depository or elsewhere, imputed to him by the Commission, do you feel nonetheless that it is incumbent upon the critics of the report to provide some kind of reconstruction of their own, as to what did happen or not? 
 

Meagher. Certainly not Bill, certainly not. Any attempt to give the critics parity with the Warren Commission is sophistry and most unwarranted. The Warren Commission had virtually unlimited resources, both in man power, funds, laboratory facilities, whatever was needed and subpoena power, which is by far being the least of these necessary powers and authorities and resources for an investigation. The critics, up until very recently have worked unknown to each other…

[Stu Wexler]

The point made by Wagner is, to me, the best argument why Oswald had to be closer to some element of the DP  plotting than many want to acknowledgr. A complete unwitting dupe scenario would raise all sorts of issues as a far as risks to conspirators. But I do not have the same type of personal commitment to insisting on his absolute innocence as some others do. I am more open to direct involvement than 95% of CTs, although I favor a fake plot  wherein he was told to wait for a call in the lunch area, etc., while a "message" was sent to JFK, only to find out later that the plot was not as fake as he thought. But I admit there is some speculation there. I do think, building on Wagner's point, that the absolute key for researchers is to find out who was in a position to influence Oswald's actions in the month of Nov, 1963, who among said individuals had motive, means and opportunity re JFK, and then develop any evidence on said person(s). So I agree, in some ways, with Wagner. In fact, my choice for our biggest problem is a combo of the Chris Matthews, Gerald Posner argument that echoes some of his: I think we have to posit a conspiracy theory that accounts for the motorcade dispute developing to go past the TSBD and Oswald getting the job in the TSBD. [I have my answers, and they do not involve Ruth P being any kind of even quasi-witting conspirator.]

But I am CT based on physical evidence, and based on Oswald's and Ruby's background. So I would just offer as the "problem for LNs" a very broad argument, one that Tink Thompson gave in 67 in SSID. Why does this case become more bewildering, with more questions, when we tug on any major thread the more we look? Why is it that in every major aspect of this case, from medical evidence to Oswald's background/file handling, the Oswald-alone theory coheres less rather the more we look? To believe the pure LN theory I have to believe a bunch of odd or unique developments (like a jet effect or a neuromusclar spasm or that Oswald dodged photo surveillance by sheer happenstance in Mexico City, etc.) that are not nearly as instrumental or odd as if I posit some sort of CT. So for example: if you dig into LHO, you find out from multiple sources that he kind of liked or admired JFK. It is not impossible that somehow he had a sudden change of heart. But if we dig even further we find out that, in places like New Orleans, there are people in his orbit who absolutely despised JFK. Etc.

I have taught classes on the history of major crimes. I co-wrote a book with Larry Hancock which I believe solves the MLK case (the only critic of which is someone who said he could completely counter the book months before we even published it, misrepresented our discussion of James Earl Ray's motivations, failed to address 98% of the evidence we offered to the point that the names of our top suspects and witnesses are all but entirely ignored--  Martin Hay, ironically.**)  Yet no case-- absolutely none-- presents the kind of fundamental questions about everything from the validity of the fundamental evidence to the life history of the key suspects, as JFK. 

** Much more can and would he said if Jim D. would allow for counter-reviews or comments on his reviews. His policy on this allows for one-sided hatchet jobs. **

 

Edited May 8 by Stu Wexler

[Richard Bertolino]

On 5/4/2024 at 12:21 AM, 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.

The greatest challenge to the truth is silver-tongued liars who work for murderers.

[Johnny Cairns]

The problem with the Oswald as witting conspirator is simple: Where’s the hard evidence for it? 

[Charles Blackmon]

27 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

The problem with the Oswald as witting conspirator is simple: Where’s the hard evidence for it? 

The rifle palm print Lt. Day lifted off of Oswald's cold dead corpse.

[Joe Bauer]

In my mind it was the killing of Oswald right inside the Dallas Police Department's own building under circumstances so incongruously illogical that it shouted conspiracy.

Everything Curry and Fritz decided to do in the transfer of America's most important and threatened criminal suspect in our history went against every logical security measure fathomable. 

They both purposely ignored the concerns of most of their staffs about moving Oswald in the day, within a general time-line and location broadcast to the public ( ? CRAZY!), and through a crush of pressing and pushing newsmen and their blinding lighting equipment, all crammed into a tight corridor of the parking garage. Then, they bring Oswald out totally exposed in his front with just two police guard escorts to his side?

Oswald is then walked to within just feet of the pressing crowd in which the Dallas Police allowed the armed strip joint owner Jack Ruby to access, mingle in and get into a perfect up-close position to leap next to Oswald within inches of his exposed gut.

No police scanned the press corps during Oswald's perp walk next to them?

Oswald had to be killed as soon as possible. And thanks to the crazy illogical and best security measures ignoring security plan to move him from the jail and pushed through by Curry and Fritz... he was.

America lost it's only hope of learning everything about Oswald and whether JFK's killing was more than his just getting lucky ( by himself ) and wanting to change the system.

 

Edited May 9 by Joe Bauer

[Johnny Cairns]

35 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The rifle palm print Lt. Day lifted off of Oswald's cold dead corpse.

The palm print, in my opinion, is evidence that the Dallas Police were actively fabricating evidence against Oswald, whom by this point was dead at the time of its reveal. 

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Johnny Cairns said:

The palm print, in my opinion, is evidence that the Dallas Police were actively fabricating evidence against Oswald, whom by this point was dead at the time of its reveal. 

They had to do something because the finger print on the trigger guard was found by the FBI to not pass muster. 

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

The rifle palm print Lt. Day lifted off of Oswald's cold dead corpse.

And where's the proof that such a thing ever occurred?

You have no such proof, of course. But you'll state it as a fact nonetheless.

 

[Ron Bulman]

26 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And where's the proof that such a thing ever occurred?

You have no such proof, of course. But you'll state it as a fact nonetheless.

 

Unless you believe the mortician about the difficulty of getting the ink off his hands.  After he'd already been prepared for burial.  By a visit from officers of the law.