I'm going to try to summarize where I am at this point. There are only a few things I'll say about Dealey Plaza. At this point I realized after reading a bunch of material that my disbelief of the timing of shots was likely based on the spacing as opposed the overall timing from start to finish, but even that is debatable. The latest I've been reading is Josiah Thomson's piece Six Seconds in Dallas. He goes into excruciating detail on most issues complete with charts of timing and distance. I like his detail. I don't want to worry about his theory at this point, but the whole book appears to be pretty factual, based on what I know now. He reaches a CT conclusion, but it appears to me he's just following the evidence as he analyzes it.
Have you gotten to the 'white mass' on the trunk yet? Care to discuss how he's being less than truthful there and concealing the evidence that destroys his argument?
Several witnesses saw either someone or more than two people in the TSBD window with a rifle prior to the motorcade's arrival. I appalled they didn't immediate say something to get the thing stopped. What the hell were they thinking?
One young man thought it was a Secret Service agent with a rifle, and pointed that out to his wife. He admitted to having nightmares about his failure to point the gunman out at the time.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
Senator COOPER - At the time you saw a man standing near a window in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle, can you state whether there were any, did you know whether or not any police officers were near you?
Mr. ROWLAND - There was an officer about 20 feet to my left.
Senator COOPER - Did you see any others?
Mr. ROWLAND - There were officers all over, that was the closest one. There were four or five on the block across the street from me, two of them being with the boy who had the epileptic fit.
There was also an officer in front of the doors to that building. There were several on the corners. I would say there were 20 uniformed officers right there in that 1 1/2-block area.
Senator COOPER - Could any of the officers that you saw whose position you noted, have seen this window from the place where they were standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - They could have; yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - You don't remember whether any of them were looking up there?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I don't remember whether they were. No; I don't.
Senator COOPER - Did it occur to you that you should speak to the officer about seeing a man in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - It has. Do you ever have reoccurring dreams, sir?
Senator COOPER - What?
Mr. ROWLAND - Do you ever have reoccurring dreams?
Senator COOPER - Yes.
Mr. ROWLAND - This is a reoccurring dream of mine, sir, all the time, what if I had told someone about it. I knew about it enough in advance and perhaps it could have been prevented. I mean this is something which shakes me up at times.
Senator COOPER - I don't want to disturb you about that but my point was at the time did you--I think you said, though, you thought that he was a--he could have been a--Secret Service man, officer.
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes; that is right.
Senator COOPER - That is all.
The CHAIRMAN - Anything further, Congressman Ford?
Representative FORD - Mr. Rowland, have you ever had occasion to go back to the scene and reconstruct it? Have you ever gone back--
The CHAIRMAN - Supposing we take a few minutes recess.
Mr. ROWLAND - The answer to that question is yes; I do all the time. I pass that area very frequently.
The Chairman.Any other questions, gentlemen, Mr. Wright?
Mr. WRIGHT - No, Your Honor.
The CHAIRMAN - Very well, Mr. Rowland, I want to thank you for coming here and cooperating with the Commission. I know that this is a matter that recalls very sordid thoughts to your mind, and I can see how you would be somewhat distressed about it but you have been very frank and cooperative with us and I appreciate We will take a short recess.
Was their timeline reversed due to trauma? I guess that's a good excuse. I'll leave Dealey Plaza for now...
Nothing like that.
This whole affair was very poorly handled in the aftermath either due to incompetence or perhaps the intention to cover up something. After the shooting, it all begins when SS illegally removed the body from Parkland to take back to Washington.
I for one am glad they did. If they didn't, guess what, the complaints wouldn't change, it would just be directly at Dallas... Dallas cops planted the rifle, Dallas officials helped plan the route, Dallas had the body... nothing would change in CT-ville except who's blamed for the conspiracy. It would not be a massive federal government conspiracy, it'd be a local Dallas one.
Getting the body out of Dallas makes for a much more complex and larger conspiracy. So I'm glad it happened that way. But it was only happenstance. The safest place for the new President was in the air, but LBJ wasn't getting airborne without Jackie, and Jackie wasn't leaving the body.
One thing I think has only been touched upon briefly and all but ignored by conspiracy theorists. That is the fact that EVERYONE approached to be part of the body alteration team or the witness elimination squad or the forging of evidence group must have all said "YES!"
How did the plotters ensure that, or ensure the silence of anyone who chose to say "No thanks!" to a plot to murder the president?
We should have a lot of people claiming to be approached to do this or that, but on that score, there's been relative silence.
Who motivated that? If the autopsy had been done in Dallas by competent forensic pathologists they would have known about the throat wound and we might not have much of the controversy that exists today.
Would NOT change the conspiracy arguments one iota, except who they blame. If Dallas authorities had the body, guess who'd be getting blamed for an inadequate autopsy, or concealing the truth? Dallas authorities.
I know the pathologists at Bethesda did not have a lot of time, but what was the rush? Why did they not plan on getting competent forensic pathologists to do the autopsy instead of two desk jockeys who didn't have a clue about a legal forensic based autopsy.
Forensic pathology was a relatively new field. By the standards of the day, Humes, Boswell, and Finck were more than qualified to perform an autopsy. All had medical degrees, all had performed autopsies in the past. Critics like to talk about how they were unqualified, but they weren't.
A good example of that is the fact that every subsequent review of the extant autopsy materials has made the same determinations as the original autopsists... two shots from behind, the throat is a exit wound, not an entry, a small entry wound in the back of the head and a massive exit wound above the ear.
Surely everyone knew this would be the autopsy of the Century up to that point. They committed some crucial errors and/or omissions leading to the probability that the whole truth won't ever be known. Was that all just incompetence and a rush to get it done or were there other motivations.
What crucial errors and/or omissions?
Why in the heck didn't the Limo undergo forensic examination. What was the rush to get it refurbished. There's a lot of discrepancies regarding it to make any reasonable person suspicious of the motive.
Photos were taken of the limo on the night of the assassination and agents of the Secret Service went over the limo with a fine tooth comb. Some of the forensic evidence (two large fragments comprising the front and rear quarters of a bullet were found in the limo) that evening. Those two fragments were determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Then we have the Warren Commission. It was rather obvious there was concerted effort to establish the Lone Gunman theory and in order to do that we get Spector's Magic Bullet (I think he first came up with it).
They followed the evidence and reached the only defensible conclusion. Time has shown that's true.
It had to be pushed really hard to ensure the Lone Gunman outcome. I didn't accept the magic bullet theory at when it happened and I don't accept it now.
Some people don't accept the world is round. So what?
Half of the Commission would not accept it and half did. So, Spector devised creative wording to get everyone to agree.
That was Warren and Redlich. They wanted a unanimous commission.
For me this is not at all similar to the other typical Conspiracy Theory subjects. There are many valid reasons to be suspicious about this one.
Name one you're prepared to discuss in depth.
Most of the others are just delusions by idiots. There are many idiots theorizing about this one too and it's hilarious. Provides a laugh a minute.
I think that's rather harsh. I think those idiots are laughing all the way to the bank. The only idiots are the ones buying the guff.
I'm open to other suggestions for additional reading of the non-CT oriented variety.
I always suggest the 26 volumes of testimony & evidence here.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
Reading that really exposed me to how the conspiracy authors were taking points out of context and ignoring contrary evidence to make their points.
In general, the conspiracy theorists (Thompson among them) stress selected eyewitness accounts over the hard evidence, use those selected accounts to dismiss the hard evidence, and then build their theory around that. That is exactly backwards from the way a true forensic investigation should proceed.
It's difficult to dig thru them there are so many that are pure CT. Right now, I'm not in the US, so all I have access to is Internet based stuff at this point.
You want a good overview of Oswald's motivation? $3.48 (U.S.) gets you this:
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se...easons why&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ats-_-used
I highly recommend it.
Hank
