Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[HSienzant]

As anyone who has watched my presentation, The Attack in Dealey Plaza knows, I have argued that there was probably a shot fired within a fraction of a second following 313.

Was there really damage to the back of the President's head? If you are not used to looking at the ugliest images of the head damage, you probably shouldn't click on this Zapruder frame link, following a large meal.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.png

Hilarious.

You're changing the subject from those four shots you previous argued happened (Z150/160, Z223, Z285, and Z313) to a new, FIFTH shot that occurs shortly after Z313.

Are we supposed to not notice you're contradicting yourself, and you're up to five shots where 90% of the witnesses heard only three?

Where exactly do you see damage to the back of JFK's head in that frame?

A portion of the back of his head is obscured by Jackie's white-gloved hand, so it certainly can't be there.

The remainder of the back of the head that is visible above her hand looks undamaged to me. Where's the damage that you see?

And why should we accept your assertions?

Is this going to be another go-round with you berating me for not seeing what you see?

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Nicholas Katzenbach has ...

And off we go, galloping away on a new topic. "I've posted a whole bunch of text walls lately. Have you read all of them? If not, I don't have to talk to you."

 

[Robert Harris]

Last man standing? So your claim is that Marcello could have stood against all the forces of government if Oswald had talked?

Think, Mike! That's precisely why Oswald was murdered.

And no, I don't have confirmation, which was kind of the point of the post. Some of us don't know everything and request information from other, better informed people. I'm pretty sure you don't qualify.

LOL!! I'm just learning, myself.

Again, hence my question. Reading for comprehension is not really your strong suit, is it?

C'mon Mike! You can come up with better insults than that, can't you? I'm sure you can get some help with that around here.

I stipulate that I am not any kind of expert or even well informed on Mafia culture of the mid-Twentieth Century. Most of what I know of mob culture I learned from old movies and reading The Godfather.

Actually, you are probably correct, that the mob did not normally kill govt. officials. But for Marcello, this was very personal. This guy was literally, a billionaire who was used to getting whatever he wanted, at the snap of his fingers. Not only did Bobby harass him unmercifully (I can empathize with that, but he had him dragged out of his house in the middle of the night and dumped unceremoniously in the jungles of Guatemala.That was a big joke for Bobby, since Guatemala was the place Marcello falsely claimed, was his country of origin.

Marcello was claimed to have sworn that he would kill JFK (not Bobby) to avenge his humiliation, and he confessed to doing exactly that, to an FBI informant as well as mafia attorney, Frank Ragano.

But he knew who hired him, right? How could Marcello know that Oswald wouldn't immediately turn him in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table? Even if Oswald didn't know about Marcello,

Of course he knew Marcello. Marcello stated that he met with Oswald at his brother's restaurant, and that he was nuts.

he could have turned in Jim Braden or David Ferrie or whoever recruited him in your theory which you won't tell anyone.

I have told everyone in spades. I have repeatedly linked this very comprehensive analysis of the shooting and my belief about who was behind the assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

I have also linked these extremely revealing segments from CNN and Fox, in which Marcello's confession was explained in great detail. Marcello was no James Files. In fact when he was subpoenaed by the HSCA, he took the fifth in response to every question about the JFK assassination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfWGWcR_J0k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exXDcu-yRiw

Which would, of course, have led straight to Marcello. Sounds like Marcello was putting a lot of faith in an unstable, not to bright loner like Oswald. And how was Oswald recruited?

That is explained in the CNN and FOX segments. And Oswald was not recruited for his shooting skills. He was recruited for his communist/Castro legend, which was hoped, to provoke the US govt to launch a more serious invasion that would take Castro out of power.

And it almost worked. In fact, that DPD declared in their indictment of Oswald that he was part of an international communist conspiracy.

Every bit of testimony we have indicates that Oswald didn't talk or have any significant contact with anyone other than the Paines and his wife and daughter.

You mean we have no other criminals who admitted that they talked with him? Gosh! How shocking is that

How did Marcello even know anything about Oswald? How did Marcello know that the JFK motorcade would go past the building where Oswald had happened to get a job?

The fact that the motorcade went past his place of work, was coincidental. Oswald didn't need to wait until Walker drove by, did he?

If the motorcade had taken a different route, the killers would have just planned the attack somewhere else. There were all kinds of plush hotels along the way that they could have gone into and simply popped him with a suppressed rifle, from a high window.

Maybe it would be easier if you laid out your theory beginning to end and see if it answers any of these questions?

I already did that, roughly half a dozen times.

What power? Again, is your claim that Marcello, a mob boss, actually had enough power to stand up to the government? He could have avoided arrest, trial, and execution if Oswald spilled his guts? How so?

Please read my response to your previous post. I explain in detail.

Lots of people had motives to hate Kennedy. Only Oswald actually shot him, though.

He might have. I tend to think that someone else fired the 313 shot though, because it seems to have been louder, and Oswald's weapon was at the low end of high powered rifles.

Listening to an interview of Laningham, he said something I thought was extremely interesting. He said Ruby took a shot at Oswald but missed. Of course, we all know that Ruby was at the DMN then and couldn't have done that.

My first thought was that this suggested his story was bogus, but as I thought it through, it made perfect sense. Let's suppose that Marcello or one of his lieutenants told Ruby that he should kill Oswald immediately after the assassination, because he was worried about exactly what you described. Ruby of course would have had to agree.

But instead of following his orders, which would have put him in extreme danger, suppose he decided to do what he did best, which was look out for Jack Ruby. Suppose he decided instead, to go somewhere where he could establish a solid alibi.

But later, when he was asked by Marcello or Marcello's minion, why he didn't shoot Mr. Oswald, what do you suppose he would have said - that he just changed his mind? That would have driven his life insurance premiums through the roof

So he said exactly what Marcello told Laningham, that he tried to shoot Oswald but he missed.

You mean the story that even the FBI dismissed as jailhouse bragging?

EVEN the FBI?? I'm glad you have a sense of humor, my friend.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hilarious.

You're changing the subject from those four shots you previous argued happened (Z150/160, Z223, Z285, and Z313) to a new, FIFTH shot that occurs shortly after Z313.

I never said there was a total of only four shots. Since it is obvious that at least one shot went unheard by most witnesses, we have no way of knowing how many others may have been fired that were also inaudible. That's why I have never in my life, posited a precise total.

Are we supposed to not notice you're contradicting yourself, and you're up to five shots where 90% of the witnesses heard only three?

I did not contradict myself. You misrepresented me.

And the witnesses could only report hearing the shots that were audible to them. Most of them only heard one shot prior to the very end of the attack. Are you going to argue that there were no others, prior to frame 285?

Where exactly do you see damage to the back of JFK's head in that frame?

LOL!! Good luck trying to sell the notion that there was no damage there. In this annotated image, please note that the the rightmost arrow is actually meant to have been pointing a bit further inward. If you look close, you will be able to distinguish the difference between the open area in the forward part of the head from Jackie's left shoulder.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/5.jpg

A portion of the back of his head is obscured by Jackie's white-gloved hand, so it certainly can't be there.

You have got to be kidding me. That silly argument was refuted years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg

The remainder of the back of the head that is visible above her hand looks undamaged to me. Where's the damage that you see?

Watch the video, Hank.

And why should we accept your assertions?

Because I prove them to be true.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Because I prove them to be true.

That's swell! It should require litte effort then to share your findings with Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Eric Lipton. Here's the number again: (212) 556-1234.

Think, man! The front page of The New York Times! The Pulitzer committee! Accolades! Fame!

 

[Robert Harris]

That's swell! It should require litte effort then to share your findings with Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Eric Lipton. Here's the number again: (212) 556-1234.

Think, man! The front page of The New York Times! The Pulitzer committee! Accolades! Fame!

Yes, I already told you I would contact them. If you have more contacts, feel free to send me a list.

 

[Robert Harris]

Christ, what a mess that was. Robert, do us all (and, most importantly, yourself) a favor, and take a course in basic reading comprehension before you again decide to answer at such sloppy and useless length what wasn't asked and address points that weren't made, while avoiding the ones that were. Honestly, the basic issues aren't as difficult as all your word-spinning makes them seem.

No, this was not a "mess". I flatly proved that you were wrong and instead of admitting it, you deleted everything I wrote.

After evading countless issues and questions, perhaps you will just address these questions, which are incredibly important.

I asked you to watch Mrs. Connally in this Zapruder segment:

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

and then address three questions:

1. When did she look back at JFK?

2. When did she react as she testified, to the apparent shot that she believed, wounded Gov. Connally.

3. Was she the only one reacting then?

Can you at least, do that?

 

[Belz...]

As I'm sure everyone here knows, "consilience", means (American Heritage/Apple dictionary)

agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, esp. science and the humanities.

After watching countless lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, etc, there seems to be a wide consilience, that the best approach to difficult controversies, is to deal with them through reason and empirical evidence - and most of all, objectivity.

Does anyone disagree with that?

You.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you unable to demonstrate that my work is not consistent with the accepted procedures and methodologies of the best of the skeptics?

That's a lie, because this has been done.

But Jay is wrong.

You've got a lot of work ahead of you before you can deem your abilities superior to anyone here, especially Jay. Learn some humility.

Oh, the irony!

Ambiguous accusations don't cut it, sir.

More irony, coming from the guy who is unable to specify his alternative scenario.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. There is all kinds of evidence for a shot at 313.

Are you, sir, qualified to make this claim ? If not, can you quote people who are and who agree with you ?

I guess that explains all those witnesses who heard four early shots, eh?

Seriously though

Actually, it's quite serious. That's what "echo" means.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in a debate in which I was so devoid of evidence that I thought all I could do, was insult my adversaries.

That should have been followed by "seriously though".

Think, Mike! That's precisely why Oswald was murdered.

Yes, think ! Don't bother with evidence or logic. Just think, and imagine a scenario you believe to be true. That's how investigators do it, right ?

Since it is obvious that at least one shot went unheard by most witnesses

I thought those were super-loud and would cause people to lurch in cars like if the car suddenly had to break ?

 

[turingtest]

Reported.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be in a debate in which I was so devoid of evidence that I thought all I could do, was insult my adversaries.

Actually, you know what? You're right- that was uncalled for on my part, and I apologize without qualification for it. If I get a card for it, I deserve it.

Now let me ask you a simple question that kind of goes to the heart of the whole thing, the reason I called your other post "a mess," and didn't bother trying to break it down. What happens to your theory if there is no "startle reflex" by Kellerman, et al, following 285? This isn't a question that requires you to rehearse (again) why you think there is- it's a simple question that's designed, if you can honestly answer it, to show just why your theory so violates consilience. So, what about it? No "startle reflex" after 285- now what?

 

[turingtest]

How exactly do we procure "hard evidence" of what Marcello contemplated? I don't think the Psychic Hotline was in business yet.

As for your other opinion, even if you were right, it would only matter if Marcello got caught, and obviously, he didn't. And you can rest assured that J. Edgar, "what mafia?" Hoover wasn't about to catch him.

Anthony Summers and other researchers found considerable support for the likelihood that Hoover was gay and that the mob had photos that could destroy him and the reputation of the FBI. Back then sociopathic killers were respected slightly more than gays.

You know of course, that Katzenbach's infamous declaration that "the pubic must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone, was actually a regurgitation of what Hoover told him, don't you?

Aren't you the one claiming that Marcello not only contemplated, but actually carried out, JFK's murder? And now you're saying that, gosh, the "hard evidence" would be difficult (if not impossible) to procure? Wow- probably should have thought of that before you made the claim, huh?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I never said there was a total of only four shots.

So your claim to having posted your complete, comprehensive and coherent alternate hypothesis was a lie.

 

[turingtest]

Last man standing? So your claim is that Marcello could have stood against all the forces of government if Oswald had talked? And no, I don't have confirmation, which was kind of the point of the post. Some of us don't know everything and request information from other, better informed people. I'm pretty sure you don't qualify.



Again, hence my question. Reading for comprehension is not really your strong suit, is it? I stipulate that I am not any kind of expert or even well informed on Mafia culture of the mid-Twentieth Century. Most of what I know of mob culture I learned from old movies and reading The Godfather.



But he knew who hired him, right? How could Marcello know that Oswald wouldn't immediately turn him in exchange for taking the death penalty off the table? Even if Oswald didn't know about Marcello, he could have turned in Jim Braden or David Ferrie or whoever recruited him in your theory which you won't tell anyone. Which would, of course, have led straight to Marcello. Sounds like Marcello was putting a lot of faith in an unstable, not to bright loner like Oswald. And how was Oswald recruited? Every bit of testimony we have indicates that Oswald didn't talk or have any significant contact with anyone other than the Paines and his wife and daughter. How did Marcello even know anything about Oswald? How did Marcello know that the JFK motorcade would go past the building where Oswald had happened to get a job? And on and on.

Maybe it would be easier if you laid out your theory beginning to end and see if it answers any of these questions?



What power? Again, is your claim that Marcello, a mob boss, actually had enough power to stand up to the government? He could have avoided arrest, trial, and execution if Oswald spilled his guts? How so?



Lots of people had motives to hate Kennedy. Only Oswald actually shot him, though.



You mean the story that even the FBI dismissed as jailhouse bragging?

The highlighted above has always been my favorite question to ask of CTists who think Oswald was entirely an innocent, planted patsy (which, in fairness, doesn't seem to include Robert*). I've found that very few of them are actually familiar with the chain of circumstances that led to LHO being hired at the TSBD- Ruth Paine, the friend with whom Marina was staying, had a neighbor, Linnie Mae Randle, whose brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, worked at the Depository. In conversation over coffee one day, it was mentioned that Marina's husband was looking for a job, and Mrs Randle suggested that he might try at her brother's place of work. Mrs Paine called Roy Truly, the supervisor there, on behalf of Marina (who spoke very little, if any, English), and Mr Truly told her he might have some temporary work available. That's it- nothing sinister, just a simple little neighborhood kaffee-klatsch. But the CTist narrative requires mob goons hovering in the shadows there, arm-twisting Mrs Randle, Mrs Paine, Mr Truly, or all three ("awright, sister- you're gonna tell the lady about that job at the Depository, or your kid gets it, see, see?").

That's if the CTist deigns to answer the question. They usually don't, it's handwaved away with a sniff and "it's the Mafia, in cahoots with the CIA, man- they can do anything." Magical thinking, as I said above- the whole thing becomes a seamless miracle, a total effect achieved without regard to messy details, by what amounts to a deity whose workings are not to be questioned because he's a deity and mechanics-free miracles are what he does.

*And Robert, I see, handwaves the issue away with "coincidental." The funny thing is, he's right- it was coincidental that JFK was driven past the place LHO was working, giving LHO his shot at fame. I doubt, though, that Robert can see the irony here- it's the fact of that "coincidental," the fact that life usually works in sloppy lurches of contingency, that makes the idea of "conspiracy" so unnecessary.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Bob, the reference to not being able to say where the shots came from seems to me to be directed straight at you; you have been somewhat cagy about that here, though you have mentioned the DalTex building (not the storm drain yet though).

You shouldn't blast others for being "ambiguous," when the rest of this very post of yours is nothing but rhetorical, question-*begging* "questions." Obviously, whatever you choose to tell yourself, people here won't agree that they have provided no evidence of flaws in your argument, nor that they have summarily stereotyped you sans trial (even JayUtah's opening salvo took a "we'll wait and see" attitude), nor, again, that any more evidence needs to be provided to support the "theory that Oswald acted alone" (again, what kind of evidence would you accept as proving, or do you imagine could exist to prove, this negative?).

And I don't think it's your "beliefs" that are being equated with creationism so much as your means of supporting them. You need to try again to comprehend "consilience." Ask yourself if anybody would even have a use for the term if it only referred to anything as simplistic, vague and banal as the notion you have expressed of it.

 

[Robert Harris]

The highlighted above has always been my favorite question to ask of CTists who think Oswald was entirely an innocent, planted patsy (which, in fairness, doesn't seem to include Robert*). I've found that very few of them are actually familiar with the chain of circumstances that led to LHO being hired at the TSBD- Ruth Paine, the friend with whom Marina was staying, had a neighbor, Linnie Mae Randle, whose brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, worked at the Depository. In conversation over coffee one day, it was mentioned that Marina's husband was looking for a job, and Mrs Randle suggested that he might try at her brother's place of work. Mrs Paine called Roy Truly, the supervisor there, on behalf of Marina (who spoke very little, if any, English), and Mr Truly told her he might have some temporary work available. That's it- nothing sinister, just a simple little neighborhood kaffee-klatsch. But the CTist narrative requires mob goons hovering in the shadows there, arm-twisting Mrs Randle, Mrs Paine, Mr Truly, or all three ("awright, sister- you're gonna tell the lady about that job at the Depository, or your kid gets it, see, see?").

That's if the CTist deigns to answer the question. They usually don't, it's handwaved away with a sniff and "it's the Mafia, in cahoots with the CIA, man- they can do anything." Magical thinking, as I said above- the whole thing becomes a seamless miracle, a total effect achieved without regard to messy details, by what amounts to a deity whose workings are not to be questioned because he's a deity and mechanics-free miracles are what he does.

*And Robert, I see, handwaves the issue away with "coincidental." The funny thing is, he's right- it was coincidental that JFK was driven past the place LHO was working, giving LHO his shot at fame. I doubt, though, that Robert can see the irony here- it's the fact of that "coincidental," the fact that life usually works in sloppy lurches of contingency, that makes the idea of "conspiracy" so unnecessary.

Turingtest, it is OK to address me in the second person. I am a human being, just like you. I am not an object. I do not bite. I'm actually a 67 year old, great grandfather. I have a small dog. I have a 1900 rating at Chess.com. I am not a member of ISIS, the Klan, the Morman church, or the Republican party. I give a few bucks now and then to UNICEF, as best I can afford to do.

I'm sure I am not as smart or as well educated as some of you guys. But I approached this case differently than most people. That doesn't make me right, but it should make my analysis interesting. You should WANT to hear from those who disagree with you, especially anyone who rejects the standard CT dogma.

And the notion that this crime was carried out by a handful of thugs rather than just one, is not woo. This is an issue that should be discussed on the basis of the verifiable facts and evidence. It isn't even all that important in 2015. It's only importance is historical.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited continued bickering

Yes, it WAS a coincidence that the motorcade drove by Oswald's place of work. When he apparently shot at Walker, he didn't wait for the man to drive by, did he? And if you are correct that he acted alone, there is no reason to think that he would not have gone elsewhere to shoot Kennedy, if the motorcade had followed a different route.

And if I am correct, then there is no reason why the killers would not have gone elsewhere to carry out out the attack.

 

[turingtest]

Bob, the reference to not being able to say where the shots came from seems to me to be directed straight at you; you have been somewhat cagy about that here, though you have mentioned the DalTex building (not the storm drain yet though).

You shouldn't blast others for being "ambiguous," when the rest of this very post of yours is nothing but rhetorical, question-*begging* "questions." Obviously, whatever you choose to tell yourself, people here won't agree that they have provided no evidence of flaws in your argument, nor that they have summarily stereotyped you sans trial (even JayUtah's opening salvo took a "we'll wait and see" attitude), nor, again, that any more evidence needs to be provided to support the "theory that Oswald acted alone" (again, what kind of evidence would you accept as proving, or do you imagine could exist to prove, this negative?).

And I don't think it's your "beliefs" that are being equated with creationism so much as your means of supporting them. You need to try again to comprehend "consilience." Ask yourself if anybody would even have a use for the term if it only referred to anything as simplistic, vague and banal as the notion you have expressed of it.

Spot on.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Turingtest, it is OK to address me in the second person. I am a human being, just like you. I am not an object. I do not bite. I'm actually a 67 year old, great grandfather. I have a small dog. I have a 1900 rating at Chess.com. I am not a member of ISIS, the Klan, the Morman church, or the Republican party. I give a few bucks now and then to UNICEF, as best I can afford to do.

No, it is entirely proper to refer to you in the second party since you so often ignore responses.

I'm sure I am not as smart or as well educated as some of you guys. But I approached this case differently than most people. That doesn't make me right, but it should make my analysis interesting. You should WANT to hear from those who disagree with you, especially anyone who rejects the standard CT dogma.

No, your approach has been so very much like all other CTists. Remember being told up front by multiple people the techniques that other CTists have tried and that you would do well to avoid them? Then you not just did exactly the same things that you were warned against doing, you absolutely wallowed in them. Just like every other CTist.

And the notion that this crime was carried out by a handful of thugs rather than just one, is not woo. This is an issue that should be discussed on the basis of the verifiable facts and evidence. It isn't even all that important in 2015. It's only importance is historical.

No, its woo. After 50 year of absolutely no compelling evidence for other shooters or a conspiracy, your latchng onto head movements which you don't understand and trying to justify it with science that you don't understand and ignoring all rebuttals to your fallacies, is woo. Absolutely typical of all other CTists.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content and response

Yes, it WAS a coincidence that the motorcade drove by Oswald's place of work. When he apparently shot at Walker, he didn't wait for the man to drive by, did he? And if you are correct that he acted alone, there is no reason to think that he would not have gone elsewhere to shoot Kennedy, if the motorcade had followed a different route.

And if pigs had wings, they'd still be too heavy to fly.

And if I am correct, then there is no reason why the killers would not have gone elsewhere to carry out out the attack.

You aren't correct. You can't justify your woo CT hypothesis and you can't even flesh it out. You go so far as to triumphantly crow that you are putting the people on ignore who have best shown you how fallacious your arguments are.

Well done, every-other-CTist.

 

[turingtest]

Turingtest, it is OK to address me in the second person. I am a human being, just like you. I am not an object. I do not bite. I'm actually a 67 year old, great grandfather. I have a small dog. I have a 1900 rating at Chess.com. I am not a member of ISIS, the Klan, the Morman church, or the Republican party. I give a few bucks now and then to UNICEF, as best I can afford to do.

I'm sure I am not as smart or as well educated as some of you guys. But I approached this case differently than most people. That doesn't make me right, but it should make my analysis interesting. You should WANT to hear from those who disagree with you, especially anyone who rejects the standard CT dogma.

And the notion that this crime was carried out by a handful of thugs rather than just one, is not woo. This is an issue that should be discussed on the basis of the verifiable facts and evidence. It isn't even all that important in 2015. It's only importance is historical.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

Yes, it WAS a coincidence that the motorcade drove by Oswald's place of work. When he apparently shot at Walker, he didn't wait for the man to drive by, did he? And if you are correct that he acted alone, there is no reason to think that he would not have gone elsewhere to shoot Kennedy, if the motorcade had followed a different route.

And if I am correct, then there is no reason why the killers would not have gone elsewhere to carry out out the attack.

Oh, please with the pity card. It has nothing to do with education- I'm an (unemployed) electrician/part-time musician with a high school education (1976, go Commodores). Education is what hones the blade- you supply the metal. As I've often said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get right what it didn't take a rocket scientist to get wrong.

And it's really not even "smarts"- that's an excuse lazy people make for not being willing to fully engage what they have. As I've also said (to you) this is simple stuff, you just gotta be willing to think outside the box you've put over your own head. You should, after all, want to hear from those who disagree with you- right?

Would it surprise you to learn that I used to be a die-hard conspiracy buff too, at least in regard to JFK? That's right, believed implicitly in the Gospel according to Groden, Lane, et al. It wasn't until reading Lifton (in 1981, at my tender age of 24) that I woke up and realized that it wasn't Lifton's evidence that was wrong, it was his whole approach to it. Then I began looking at the other CT authors and saw the same flawed approach- which, in a nutshell, is lack of even any attempt at consilience. I didn't, at that time, have the name for the concept, but it was pretty clear that an all-over-the-place approach gets you no real place at all.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bob, the reference to not being able to say where the shots came from seems to me to be directed straight at you; you have been somewhat cagy about that here, though you have mentioned the DalTex building (not the storm drain yet though).

I have not. I have posted a comprehensive presentation which discusses the sniper locations and possible sniper locations in great detail, and I have linked it at least half a dozen times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

This may seem like a simple question, but the answer is not. As I explain in the presentation, I feel that third floor of the Daltex is the most likely location for the for the sniper who fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as those at the end.

I am not so certain about the final shots, which is why I devoted a fairly lengthy segment in the presentation, to what I feel are the most likely locations. And rather than just blurt out a list of those locations, I prefer that they be examined in conjunction with the evidence, which includes possible trajectories, overlaid on the HSCA surveyor's diagram and other graphic images.

If you want someone to just blurt out their theories about where the shots came from, go to the nearest bar where a lot of old guys hang out.

If I assert that there was a shot at 285, you only waste bandwidth by ranting about me begging the question. What you should be doing is trying to refute me, based on the evidence and reasoning I have presented and any evidence and reasoning you might choose to present.

Obviously, whatever you choose to tell yourself, people here won't agree that they have provided no evidence of flaws in your argument,

It doesn't matter if someone claims he has refuted me. All that matters is the evidence and analysis he presents in rebuttal to my analysis, and our debate on the issue. This is not complicated.

nor that they have summarily stereotyped you sans trial (even JayUtah's opening salvo took a "we'll wait and see" attitude), nor, again, that any more evidence needs to be provided to support the "theory that Oswald acted alone" (again, what kind of evidence would you accept as proving, or do you imagine could exist to prove, this negative?).

This is a silly argument, Sandy. When do we discuss the assassination?

You need to try again to comprehend "consilience." Ask yourself if anybody would even have a use for the term if it only referred to anything as simplistic, vague and banal as the notion you have expressed of it.

I already did that. By far, the most consistent and accurate consilience, from the minds of the greatest skeptics has been that it's all about the evidence, which is why I have posted and linked more verifiable evidence than any 10 people in this forum.

What astounds me is that 90% of my adversaries won't even discuss that evidence, and focus entirely on Robert Harris. A classic example is their argument that I have no right to presume that there was a shot at 285.

Consider the quantity and quality of the evidence I have presented in support of that conclusion, in comparison with the evidence they have presented in support of the lone nut theory, which amounts to absolutely nothing. But no one complains about "begging the question" when one of theirs blurts out something which presumes that Oswald acted alone.

The bottom line here is that the only thing that is important are the facts and evidence. Everything else is purely tactical and evades the question that we need to be debating.


http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited several breaches of rule 12