"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review - Page 5

Double post

Might I ask why this is being dredged back up again?

*sighs* I'm just going to give my standard answer to this: it's an issue and a day that is going to inflame passions and there will be sides to the argument - either Oswald acted alone or he didn't. Sad fact is neither answer makes JFK any less dead.

I think the other reason why there is such passion is nature abhors a void, which the events of 11/22/63 are: we simply do not have a pat explanation or answer for everything that happened. And before anyone says the Warren Report gave us all the answers, you'll have just as many people argue that they didn't because they couldn't account for everything.

I will simply say that, for my part, I have my own thoughts and opinions, but I choose to keep them to myself. It accomplishes nothing to stoke the flames of an argument where people and feelings are going to get hurt by passion.

Now... any REMOTE chance of getting a discussion of television coverage of 11/22/63 out of this?

Actually, I think the reason why we have had a cottage industry of conspiracy buffdom since the beginning is because for too many people, the notion that JFK was murdered by someone's irrational commitment to Marxist-Leninist ideology is just not a "politically correct" explanation for why he should have been killed.      And so, there is an obsessive desire to construct scenarios with more "rational" solutions.     But frankly, if we can accept the reality of the fact that Ronald Reagan was nearly murdered because of another sick man's obsession with Jodie Foster, there's no reason not to accept the reason why Oswald did it, especially when the evidence is overwhelming on the subject from not just the Warren Commission but every other responsible inquiry since then.       And I do not consider Oliver Stone, a guy whose primary sources of inspiration were respectively (1) a dishonest prosecutor named Jim Garrison (2) a crackpot Holocaust Denier named L. Fletcher Prouty and (3) O.J. Simpson's photo "expert" who tried to with a straight face assert that 20 separate pictures of Simpson wearing the murder shoes were fake, to be "responsible."

Bugliosi's book, which reveals a lot more material that was left out of the final cut of the "On Trial" special is a must-own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattPeriolat 

 

 

Now... any REMOTE chance of getting a discussion of television coverage of 11/22/63 out of this?

The coverage of JFK's assassination during the period November 22-25 1963 was a seminal event for television broadcasting. At a time when America,and most of the world for that matter, was in shock and mourning, the images being broadcast from Dallas and Washington not only held a captive audience in awe of the events that were transpiring, but also helped in beginning the healing process. If it had not been apparent until then, the assassination of such a youthful,vigorous figure as JFK drove home the fact that, no matter how high a position one attains in life, we are all mortal and have a finite time allocated to us on this planet. That families and friends watched the tv coverage from assassination to burial together en masse helped us,IMHO, to collectively grieve and recover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

Actually, I think the reason why we have had a cottage industry of conspiracy buffdom since the beginning is because for too many people, the notion that JFK was murdered by someone's irrational commitment to Marxist-Leninist ideology is just not a "politically correct" explanation for why he should have been killed.      And so, there is an obsessive desire to construct scenarios with more "rational" solutions.     But frankly, if we can accept the reality of the fact that Ronald Reagan was nearly murdered because of another sick man's obsession with Jodie Foster, there's no reason not to accept the reason why Oswald did it, especially when the evidence is overwhelming on the subject from not just the Warren Commission but every other responsible inquiry since then.       And I do not consider Oliver Stone, a guy whose primary sources of inspiration were respectively (1) a dishonest prosecutor named Jim Garrison (2) a crackpot Holocaust Denier named L. Fletcher Prouty and (3) O.J. Simpson's photo "expert" who tried to with a straight face assert that 20 separate pictures of Simpson wearing the murder shoes were fake, to be "responsible."

 

Bugliosi's book, which reveals a lot more material that was left out of the final cut of the "On Trial" special is a must-own.

      Here we go again. First, as to you Hinkley reference. Had he succeeded in killing Reagan and then been killed two days later by a hood with a ton of mob ties, you don't think his motives would have been questioned as well? Sorry but there were far too many coincidences in this case and far too many conflicting stories. Suffice it to say that the Warren Commission did not do an independent investigation. They had their conclusion and then put together all of the facts to fit the conclusion that they had decided upon from the beginning. Which meant not calling witnesses or speaking to people who would give contradictory evidence. Also, coercing witnesses to change their stories according to what they wanted to hear. As for the MBT, which has been completely disproved simply by the condition of the so-called bullet which was practically pristine, well that didn't even come about until after they found the shot which had ricocheted off the curb. They then were stuck for an answer and that's when Arlen Spector came up with his creative explanation of the magic bullet. But no such explanation was even thought about or existed until the commission realized that they were stuck for any kind of plausible theory.

#1-Ruby did not have a "ton" of mob ties.   This was a guy who couldn't even get his own traffic tickets fixed, and who also showed up with no time to spare in the basement simply because by a coincidence no one could have predicted, Oswald's transfer downtown was held up an hour because a postal inspector decided not to go to church that morning and instead wanted to have one last interview with Oswald about the mail order documents related to the rifle purchase.    If the postal inspector goes to church, then Oswald is in the county jail before Ruby even went downtown to be there.    That's not how Mafia hits operate (nor do they kill their targets on national TV).

#2-Witnesses were not coerced by the WC.  

#3-The Single Bullet Theory was upheld by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and a team of 19 forensic pathologists.    The bullet is not pristine it is flattened at one end, plus there's the fact that the scar in John Connally's back (an elongated one indicating being struck by a tumbling bullet) and the nature of his wounds totally rule out the idea of him being hit by a separate bullet.      Critics of the SBT so often have a hard time constructing an actual scenario that explains the physical evidence beacuse they too often waste time raising questions that have plausible answers or are questions based on a false reading of the evidence.       Then there's the matter of Oswald being seen in the window, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, eleven witnesses seeing him kill Officer Tippit etc.  and the list goes on (and the list of deception and fraud by conspiracy authors could also fill a book).      The only reason why the case is not accepted for what the evidence shows is because too many people just don't want to admit the obvious and realize that Oswald killing JFK fit into the pattern typical of deranged nuts devoted to deranged ideas taking matters in their own hands.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

Actually, I think the reason why we have had a cottage industry of conspiracy buffdom since the beginning is because for too many people, the notion that JFK was murdered by someone's irrational commitment to Marxist-Leninist ideology is just not a "politically correct" explanation for why he should have been killed.      And so, there is an obsessive desire to construct scenarios with more "rational" solutions.     But frankly, if we can accept the reality of the fact that Ronald Reagan was nearly murdered because of another sick man's obsession with Jodie Foster, there's no reason not to accept the reason why Oswald did it, especially when the evidence is overwhelming on the subject from not just the Warren Commission but every other responsible inquiry since then.       And I do not consider Oliver Stone, a guy whose primary sources of inspiration were respectively (1) a dishonest prosecutor named Jim Garrison (2) a crackpot Holocaust Denier named L. Fletcher Prouty and (3) O.J. Simpson's photo "expert" who tried to with a straight face assert that 20 separate pictures of Simpson wearing the murder shoes were fake, to be "responsible."

 

Bugliosi's book, which reveals a lot more material that was left out of the final cut of the "On Trial" special is a must-own.

Didn't the House Special Commission also admit that there was "probably" an extra gunshot after analyzing all the acoustical evidence?  I'm normally not a "conspiracy guy" but in the case of JFK, I think anyone who doesn't have at least a "reasonable doubt" about the Warren Commission and the Magic Bullet isn't REALLY looking at all the evidence with an open mind.  I'm not saying that I believe the Mafia and the CIA and the Cuban Exiles somehow all conspired to kill the President, but I think it is entirely possible that there is some kind of conspiracy which somehow has been hidden for years.  Other episodes of covert operations or actions have been know to exist in the past.  If there is nothing to hide then why are so many documents sealed regarding the assassination and the investigation?  If everything is above board and so transparent, then why hide it?  Wouldn't giving open access to every single fact about the crime and the investigation finally SILENCE all the conspiracy guys?  Why is the single most important piece of evidence, JFK's brain, "lost"?  It doesn't add up for me, and quite possibly never will. 

What actually happened with the House committee was they were first going to release a report that said no conspiracy but at the last minute, their chief counsel who was desperately trying to push a "Mafia did it" thesis got them to make a hasty evaluation of some acoustic material that supposedly had the "impulse pattern" of a fourth shot.    But in 1982 a scientific panel studied this in more depth than the House committee had time to do, and they found the evidence was invalid and the "impulse pattern" could not be a gunshot because at the time it takes place you can hear dialogue of the Dallas sheriffs that wasn't spoken until *after* all shots had been fired by more than a minute.   Remove that one item that was then discredited and the rest of the House findings uphold the WC conclusions in full.

Most documents in fact are no longer sealed.   They were opened up in the early 1990s in response to that wretched movie and they revealed nothing more than bureaucratic infighting on how to conduct the investigation and nothing that involved cover-up of a conspiracy (except in terms of trying to downplay politics as the motive for Oswald killing Kennedy because LBJ didn't want a backlash against Castro and the Soviets that could result in possible war).

As for the brain, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that RFK had it destroyed or reinterred with his brother in 1967 because he didn't want it becoming a ghoulish historical curiosity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

 

 

As for the brain, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that RFK had it destroyed or reinterred with his brother in 1967 because he didn't want it becoming a ghoulish historical curiosity.

As a former Attorney General of the United States,i.e.,the highest ranking law official in the country, I find it extremely unlikely that RFK would confiscate what would be the most decisive and conclusive piece of evidence in determining from which direction the fatal head shot(s) originated because he "didn't want it becoming a ghoulish historical curiosity."

First off, it wasn't conclusive.    The evidence that determined where the shots came from were the entry and exit wounds visible in the autopsy photographs and x-rays, plus the fragments of bullets recovered that matched to Oswald's rifle.     Then factor how we have documents of RFK going to the trouble of having the casket that brought JFK back from Dallas dropped into the Atlantic because he didn't want it to become a historical artifact, and the matter of what happened to the brain as theorized by the House committee is all the more credible.

Bobby Kennedy accepted the WC findings and wanted to move on from the whole thing.     He even openly denounced Jim Garrison's investigation and Garrison actually accused Bobby of being part of the cover-up when Bobby was still alive!   (this is another inconvenient fact about Garrison that Stone wasn't going to dramatize).    

      I notice how you completely ignore everything in my post about this that you don't want to deal with, such as the last-minute inclusion of the MBT after their original scenario fell apart with the finding of the bullet that struck the curb. This MBT theory is valid and so believable that it never existed until they had to come up with something to throw together or else the whole ruse would fall apart. But lets not talk about that aspect, right?

      And what about the doctor talking to the press AT THE TIME, telling them that the president was struck in the head FROM THE FRONT. Of course, that doesn't count either. Neither does the fact that there were initially no prints on the supposed Oswald rifle until they were found days later. Or all of the people who heard shots coming from behind them on the grassy knoll. Including someone who had been in combat. But lets not believe any of these accounts that came out immediately afterwards, better to believe what we hear after everyone had time to get their stories straight according to what we were supposed to be told. The bullet came from the back and that's why the head goes backward IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SHOT. That's a good one, almost as good as the MB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil Brock 

Quote:

#3-The Single Bullet Theory was upheld by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and a team of 19 forensic pathologists.    The bullet is not pristine it is flattened at one end, plus there's the fact that the scar in John Connally's back (an elongated one indicating being struck by a tumbling bullet) and the nature of his wounds totally rule out the idea of him being hit by a separate bullet.      Critics of the SBT so often have a hard time constructing an actual scenario that explains the physical evidence beacuse they too often waste time raising questions that have plausible answers or are questions based on a false reading of the evidence.       Then there's the matter of Oswald being seen in the window, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, eleven witnesses seeing him kill Officer Tippit etc.  and the list goes on (and the list of deception and fraud by conspiracy authors could also fill a book).      The only reason why the case is not accepted for what the evidence shows is because too many people just don't want to admit the obvious and realize that Oswald killing JFK fit into the pattern typical of deranged nuts devoted to deranged ideas taking matters in their own hands.     

      I notice how you completely ignore everything in my post about this that you don't want to deal with, such as the last-minute inclusion of the MBT after their original scenario fell apart with the finding of the bullet that struck the curb. This MBT theory is valid and so believable that it never existed until they had to come up with something to throw together or else the whole ruse would fall apart. But lets not talk about that aspect, right?

 

      And what about the doctor talking to the press AT THE TIME, telling them that the president was struck in the head FROM THE FRONT. Of course, that doesn't count either. Neither does the fact that there were initially no prints on the supposed Oswald rifle until they were found days later. Or all of the people who heard shots coming from behind them on the grassy knoll. Including someone who had been in combat. But lets not believe any of these accounts that came out immediately afterwards, better to believe what we hear after everyone had time to get their stories straight according to what we were supposed to be told. The bullet came from the back and that's why the head goes backward IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SHOT. That's a good one, almost as good as the MB.

I didn't ignore a thing.    The SBT (I will not use your acronym because it's based on a phony premise regarding the totality of the evidence) was developed as a result of solid investigative work that simply managed to effectively reconcile the matter of the physical and medical evidence regarding the shots.      The burden of proof is on *your* side to construct actual plausible alternate scenarios of what happened that fit the physical and medical evidence, and on that, conspiracy buffdom bats a big zero because whenever someone tries to do this they're left with theories that give us real cases of magic bullets (like the notion of JFK being hit in the head by two bullets that manage to hit him in the space of 1/24th of a second to account why no one hears a separate shot; or the Garrison crackpot idea of seven shooters and one in the storm drain) and then if JFK is hit by a separate bullet *where did that bullet go* if it didn't hit Connally or damage the limo interior, and then there's the matter of Connally's scar caused by a tumbling bullet that passed through something else and the fact that his wounds would have been fatal if he'd been hit by a separate bullet.      No, instead you'd like to rely on imprecise observations in the haste of the moment by the Dallas doctor who was not conducting an autopsy (this is like saying that because people who saw what they thought was a small commuter plane hit the WTC, ergo it could not have been a United jet and never mind the facts!).

And of course should I get into the matter of (1) the fingerprints found on the rifle in the 1993 Vincent Scalice re-examination using photos of the rifle taken on 11/22 (which means your diss on that evidence goes up in smoke;  it's easy to do that when one isn't aware of the Scalice re-examination, the photos for which that he used being available in "JFK-First Day Evidence") or (2) no witnesses who see a gunman on the knoll (3) no physical evidence of a shot being fired from there or in the bullet fragments found in both men.  

Just who is this "man in combat" who thinks the shots came from the knoll?    If this is Charles Brehm, I've got some bad news for you.    He was furious Mark Lane said he had thought the shots came from the knoll when as he later said, "Every question he asked I told him the shots came from the Book Depository".    Brehm is also a witness for the prosecution testifying to that effect in the mock trial that is the subject of this video.     Unfortunately, Oliver Stone didn't do a fact check on Charles Brehm (like on so many things) when making his dishonest movie.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil Brock 

Quote:

#3-The Single Bullet Theory was upheld by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and a team of 19 forensic pathologists.    The bullet is not pristine it is flattened at one end, plus there's the fact that the scar in John Connally's back (an elongated one indicating being struck by a tumbling bullet) and the nature of his wounds totally rule out the idea of him being hit by a separate bullet.      Critics of the SBT so often have a hard time constructing an actual scenario that explains the physical evidence beacuse they too often waste time raising questions that have plausible answers or are questions based on a false reading of the evidence.       Then there's the matter of Oswald being seen in the window, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, eleven witnesses seeing him kill Officer Tippit etc.  and the list goes on (and the list of deception and fraud by conspiracy authors could also fill a book).      The only reason why the case is not accepted for what the evidence shows is because too many people just don't want to admit the obvious and realize that Oswald killing JFK fit into the pattern typical of deranged nuts devoted to deranged ideas taking matters in their own hands.     

      I notice how you completely ignore everything in my post about this that you don't want to deal with, such as the last-minute inclusion of the MBT after their original scenario fell apart with the finding of the bullet that struck the curb. This MBT theory is valid and so believable that it never existed until they had to come up with something to throw together or else the whole ruse would fall apart. But lets not talk about that aspect, right?

 

      And what about the doctor talking to the press AT THE TIME, telling them that the president was struck in the head FROM THE FRONT. Of course, that doesn't count either. Neither does the fact that there were initially no prints on the supposed Oswald rifle until they were found days later. Or all of the people who heard shots coming from behind them on the grassy knoll. Including someone who had been in combat. But lets not believe any of these accounts that came out immediately afterwards, better to believe what we hear after everyone had time to get their stories straight according to what we were supposed to be told. The bullet came from the back and that's why the head goes backward IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SHOT. That's a good one, almost as good as the MB.

Other facts:  The doctor performing the tracheostomy on the president, noted that he extended the gun shot wound in the neck to perform the endotracheal tube insertion.  At the time he noted that the wound was "an entry wound" not an exit wound.  I would think that an experienced trauma surgeon could easily make the distinction between entry and exit wounds.

LBJ stated years later that he didn't entirely believe the Warren Commission report.    

Oswald was identified by a Dallas policemen as being on the 2nd floor building cafeteria within 30 seconds of the last shot being fired.  He hid his rifle and went down 2 or 3 flights of stairs and appeared calm and not out of breath within 30 seconds of the last shot?  Hard to believe.

Declassified documents admit Oswald was a CIA agent

Multiple witnesses describe that the back of JFK's head was blown out, not the front, as you would expect with a shot from behind.

The Magic Bullet just happened to pop out of a stretcher sheet?  What??

Why did Ruby just happen to come down the garage ramp at the precise moment that Oswald was leaving?  If Ruby had expected him to come down an hour earlier as you explained, why didn't he show up then, an hour earlier?  Why the hell was he in the police parking garage AT ALL?  And why would he be carrying a weapon?  Unless Ruby knew EXACTLY when he was being moved, why wouldn't he have shown up earlier, or later?  If he was just HOPING to catch him at the precise moment, then he was STUPID.  You said the Mafia wouldn't assassinate like that.  Well the Mafia has a history of assassinations in public places, and the Mafia wouldn't assassinate anyone by just HOPING that the assassin would arrive at the right time by Sheer Luck.  They would know EXACTLY where the guy was supposed to be, and when. Ditto for the CIA, or any well organized group.  Hinckley was a lone nut, but he KNEW where President Reagan was going to be and when.  

#1-If he doesn't turn JFK over and see the entry wound there, he can easily make that mistake too.     Again, the notion that those who were acting in the haste of the moment to try and save the president's life can be better trained to describe the wounds than the autopsy surgeons, or the 19 forensic pathologists of the House Committee is a very dubious one.   That's again the equivalent of saying a 9/11 witness who insists there was no plane hitting the WTC because he didn't see it from his angle is a better observer!

#2-LBJ's doubts were always from the outset related to the subject of Cuban communist conspiracy which is not exactly the area buffdom likes to focus on.    Of course we've got plenty of other buffs who like to say LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination, so why can't they make up their minds!

#3-Declassified documents admit no such thing about Oswald.   OTOH, KGB files that were made public in the early 1990s reveal how much he was under observation the whole time and how in their judgment he was *not* a U.S. intelligent agent (this is another sad case of how great research done by others that do not support conspiracy buffdom gets conveniently swept under the rug in the newest edition of buff literature in the hopes the public will never find out about the research done on these points)

#4-As for the matter of JFK's head wound, you've got the Z-film which shows his head being driven slightly forward before it moves backward (consistent with a rear shot), you've also got the small entry wound to the rear of the massive exit wound which reveals the same thing etc. etc.        And the only response to this is "people described it this way" who were those in the haste of the moment and not doing the hard extended study (never mind the fact that they're not pathologists!).     This kind of standard of evidence would get laughed out of court if anyone tried to present it that way.

#5-Ruby was in the garage because he was simply one of those "police character" types who always hung out at the station.      And Mafia types do not do things as Ruby did in which (1) he stands in the line at Western Union to wire money to one of his strippers and makes it down with about 30 seconds to spare, meaning that if the line at Western Union had been one or two people longer he would have had no time to get there.      He was totally nonchalant in line the whole time and making no rush to get through.       That is not the mark of any professional hitman, it's the mark of a lone weirdo himself acting on impulse for the reasons he later said, "I wanted to show the world that Jews have guts" because in his loopy mind he thought the Jews would be blamed for JFK's murder.     Again, if our times can produce a John Hinckley with his loopy motive for shooting Reagan, it can also produce a Ruby with his warped spur of the moment action.

Invoking the CIA as a bogeyman ultimately says more about the political bias of conspiracy buffdom than it does about commitment to studying the factual record alas.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

#1-If he doesn't turn JFK over and see the entry wound there, he can easily make that mistake too.     Again, the notion that those who were acting in the haste of the moment to try and save the president's life can be better trained to describe the wounds than the autopsy surgeons, or the 19 forensic pathologists of the House Committee is a very dubious one.   That's again the equivalent of saying a 9/11 witness who insists there was no plane hitting the WTC because he didn't see it from his angle is a better observer!

 

#2-LBJ's doubts were always from the outset related to the subject of Cuban communist conspiracy which is not exactly the area buffdom likes to focus on.    Of course we've got plenty of other buffs who like to say LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination, so why can't they make up their minds!

 

#3-Declassified documents admit no such thing about Oswald.   OTOH, KGB files that were made public in the early 1990s reveal how much he was under observation the whole time and how in their judgment he was *not* a U.S. intelligent agent (this is another sad case of how great research done by others that do not support conspiracy buffdom gets conveniently swept under the rug in the newest edition of buff literature in the hopes the public will never find out about the research done on these points)

 

#4-As for the matter of JFK's head wound, you've got the Z-film which shows his head being driven slightly forward before it moves backward (consistent with a rear shot), you've also got the small entry wound to the rear of the massive exit wound which reveals the same thing etc. etc.        And the only response to this is "people described it this way" who were those in the haste of the moment and not doing the hard extended study (never mind the fact that they're not pathologists!).     This kind of standard of evidence would get laughed out of court if anyone tried to present it that way.

 

#5-Ruby was in the garage because he was simply one of those "police character" types who always hung out at the station.      And Mafia types do not do things as Ruby did in which (1) he stands in the line at Western Union to wire money to one of his strippers and makes it down with about 30 seconds to spare, meaning that if the line at Western Union had been one or two people longer he would have had no time to get there.      He was totally nonchalant in line the whole time and making no rush to get through.       That is not the mark of any professional hitman, it's the mark of a lone weirdo himself acting on impulse for the reasons he later said, "I wanted to show the world that Jews have guts" because in his loopy mind he thought the Jews would be blamed for JFK's murder.     Again, if our times can produce a John Hinckley with his loopy motive for shooting Reagan, it can also produce a Ruby with his warped spur of the moment action.

 

Invoking the CIA as a bogeyman ultimately says more about the political bias of conspiracy buffdom than it does about commitment to studying the factual record alas.     

yada yada yada.  Back and forth.  All your explanations will never convince me or others, and all my doubts and questions will never dissuade you from your convictions.  Someone once said, 'the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it".  This could easily apply to either the JFK conspiracy theories or the Official Warren Report.  Take your pick. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie 

Quote:

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe in it

A quote which can apply to conspiracy believers just as well.

Read my whole statement.  That is what I said.

The difference is that I have an answer to all of your "doubts and questions" where as conspiracy buffs seem to never have a good way of coping with those answers because belief in a conspiracy is more an article of religious faith to them.       Not a single question raised against the lone gunman explanation has gone unanswered from those who defend that matter of how this event in time unfolded (For which there is but one answer).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

First off, it wasn't conclusive.    The evidence that determined where the shots came from were the entry and exit wounds visible in the autopsy photographs and x-rays    

 While there have been numerous reports of autopsy photos and xrays being forged, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that they were all genuine. I'm no forensic pathologist, but I would have to say that the actual physical brain,undergoing neutron activation analysis to determine the path the bullet(s) took would trump any photo or xray in being the most conclusive and decisive piece of evidence available.

As I've mentioned in a previous post, within 90 seconds of the shooting, TSBD employee Roy Truly and Police Officer Marrion Baker encountered LHO calmly drinking a coke in the second floor lunchroom. At that point,seeing no reason to detain Oswald, the pair hurried up to the 6th floor, where at first,nothing appeared to be amiss.The discovery of the 3 spent cartridge shells and the concealed rifle would come later. This is where I have a problem. Truly and Baker,a trained police officer,were on the 6th floor between 3 and 5 minutes after the shots were fired,but yet something very important was missing. What was that? The presence of the odor of gunpowder. In a relatively confined area as the 6th floor, despite the presence of at least 2 men,including a trained police officer who were both there within 5 minutes of the shooting..probably a lot earlier..nobody detected the very distinct scent of gunpowder despite the fact that allegedly, 3 shots were fired from this room seconds earlier. Is it because Mannlicher Carcanos don't emit any traceable odors of gunpowder immediately after being fired or do these telltale odors dissipate within seconds? Or perhaps, the explanation is a lot simpler...that no weapons were ever fired from the 6th floor.

You know who the guy is who loves to tout the "forged autopsy photos" story?    A kook by the name of Robert Groden, a guy who is not a top professional in the photographic field, and who never was able to get any other job as an expert until in desperation O.J. Simpson's defense team in the civil trial used him to assert that pictures of Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes were fake.    Then, to Groden's supreme embarrassment, the Brown/Goldman lawyers sprung 20 different photos on Groden revealing just how non-existent his "expertise" in this area actually is.

Not smelling gunpowder on the 6th floor is *your* prejudice regarding how you think it "should" have been when that is not how it works.     First off, that isn't relevant on the matter when you have to square that with the matter of bullet trajectories lining back to the 6th Floor *and* that Oswald was seen in the window by Howard Brennan and that a rifle was seen pulled back into the window by Robert Jackson in the motorcade press car (that's multiple witnesses who actually see a gunman or rifle in that window who reported that within minutes).     If you're using this line of thinking to say no gun was fired from the 6th Floor window you're finding yourself in a camp that not even the most ardent of buffs belong to because even they have always had to concede the point of at least some shots fired from the TSBD by that rifle based on bullet wounds in JFK and Connally.

This is a classic case of what I've always noted in buff thinking.   They focus on one little anomaly that they think is the cornerstone to the whole lone-assassin argument and then they fail to place the context of what their supposed "anomaly" means if we then take a look at the totality of the vast scope of the evidence.     I think buffs need to spend a lot less time asking questions and start putting up on the matter of how things *really* happened and not hide behind some cop-out of "we'll never know" which is usually code language for acknowledging that they can't construct a plausible alternate scenario of how things really unfolded in those six seconds without coming off like a 9/11 "truther".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack P 

yada yada yada.  Back and forth.  All your explanations will never convince me or others, and all my doubts and questions will never dissuade you from your convictions.  Someone once said, 'the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it".  This could easily apply to either the JFK conspiracy theories or the Official Warren Report.  Take your pick. 

The difference is that I have an answer to all of your "doubts and questions" where as conspiracy buffs seem to never have a good way of coping with those answers because belief in a conspiracy is more an article of religious faith to them.       Not a single question raised against the lone gunman explanation has gone unanswered from those who defend that matter of how this event in time unfolded (For which there is but one answer).

So..because you have stated in your own words..."I have an answer to ALL of your doubts and questions"...please tell me...Why weren't there any telltale odors of gunpowder detectable on the 6th floor within seconds of the shooting despite the presence of a trained police officer and Superintendent Roy Truly?
 

Well, I don't know about any of this, apart from the fact that JFK and LHO are still dead.

I essentially look at the Warren Report as "the case for the prosecution" and Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment as "the case for the defense" for Oswald -- meaning both had an agenda and they are two sides of the coin. I don't think either one presents quotes from eyewitnesses or other evidence in a straightforward, honest way.

I do believe it's easy to see in the Oswald "backyard photos" that in the different shots, it's the same head (or at least most of it, since the chin does not match other photos of Oswald).

As far as Ruby in the police station, one theory is that Oswald was only brought out once Ruby was ready. Supposedly the cue was the honking of the car horn.

In a sick, twisted way, I got a kick out of The Onion's JFK assassination headline page...

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil* 

So..because you have stated in your own words..."I have an answer to ALL of your doubts and questions"...please tell me...Why weren't there any telltale odors of gunpowder detectable on the 6th floor within seconds of the shooting despite the presence of a trained police officer and Superintendent Roy Truly?
 

The answer is that is not relevant information as to establishing whether or not a gun was fired from there.    You on the other hand have to explain a mountain of evidence that says otherwise, and also the fact that your hypothesis about no shots being fired from that window has to square with all of those other points.    What did Howard Brennan see then when he saw Oswald fire his last shot?    What did Robert Jackson and other press people see when they reported a rifle being pulled back in the window?    What did Jarman and Norman, one floor below the sniper's nest hear when they heard the bolt action of the rifle and the cartridges hitting the floor?     How do you explain the bullet wounds and trajectories that go back to the sixth floor?     Etc. etc. etc.     That's the stuff you've got to do some explaining about in order to come up with your alternate scenario of how this event in time unfolded and raising what you think is an anomaly isn't how it works.

Conspiracy buffs, start putting forth your explanation of how this moment in time unfolded and do so using facts, not empty speculation designed to fill in the gaps (like car horns as signals etc.)    Anything less is worthless.