Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week.
The evidence is straightforward, the silly lengths conspiracy theorists go to dismiss the evidence or twist it beyond recognition in their favor is what takes years to understand.
Like you advance an argument that the bullet recovered in the hospital wasn't CE399, but you take it no further. You refuse to discuss what a bullet that was not connected to the assassination was doing in Parkland immediately after the two victims of the assassination were taken to Parkland. You refuse to discuss how and why this bullet could have been planted, or how it could have survived hitting a different victim and emerged practically unscathed. And if it could do that, why couldn't the victim be John Connally and the bullet be CE399?
Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly.
In the words of Harry Truman, that's a load of horse manure. You won't be able to show that one piece of evidence is altered or substituted for in any fashion. You will advance the same tired - and wrong - arguments conspiracy theorists have advanced for decades, not even seeing the assumptions and gaps in logic built into those arguments.
Every single Tippit witness has their own little story.
As I told Reheat above, welcome to the real world. Yes, every witness has their own story. And they all differ from each other.
For an excellent example, let's all turn to page 201 of RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by Mark Lane. On that page, he writes:
Benavides made reference to having seen a 'light-beige' jacket, but when Commission Exhibit 163, described by the Commission Report as a 'heavy blue jacket', was shown to him by counsel, evidently in error, he said, 'I would say this looks just like it.' Barbara Davis testified that the killer wore 'a black coat' when she saw him run across her lawn. * Ted Callaway thought the jacket worn by the assailant 'had a little more tan to it' than Commission Exhibit 162. Mrs Markham believed the jacket was darker than the one shown to her in Washington, although little or no credence can be placed in her estimate. Warren Reynolds described the jacket that the fleeing man wore as 'blueish' and Scoggins told Commission counsel that the man who ran past his taxicab wore a jacket darker than Commission Exhibit 162.
So what conclusion are we to draw here? As noted, Oswald was seen zipping up a jacket when he left the rooming house, he was jacketless when seen by Brewer a half-hour later. Meanwhile, a jacket was found in a parking lot roughly in between those two locations, and Oswald was seen in that parking by one witness.
Now, how do YOU reconcile the different descriptions of the gunman's jacket given by the witnesses, given the fact that Oswald apparently abandoned a jacket somewhere along the way, and that abandoned jacket was apparently recovered from the parking lot? I know how I reconcile them -- witnesses are sometimes mistaken, are therefore untrustworthy, and the hard evidence takes primacy, but I need to know how you reconcile these disparate descriptions.
I'll offer up a couple of possibilities. Let me know which one you favor:
(a) Each witness saw a different Tippit killing, with a different killer re-enacting the scene. Each time it was re-enacted, the killer donned a different jacket, accounting for the disparate jacket descriptions of the fleeing killer. This preserves the accuracy of the witnesses accounts.
(b) The Tippit killing only happened once, but Tippit was gunned down by numerous gunmen, each wearing a different jacket. For some reason, the various witnesses only saw one gunman flee the scene. This also preserves the accuracy of the witnesses accounts.
(c) The Tippit killing happened once, the witnesses aren't perfect, and they got some details wrongs. This has the appeal of being the most realistic explanation, but of course, shatters your belief that witnesses recollections - some from 33 years after the fact - should take precedence over hard evidence like the shells collected at the scene or the revolver taken from Oswald's hand or the paperwork linking him to that revolver or the witnesses who picked him out of police lineups over the next 24 hours.
I'd really love to hear your explanation for what these disparate descriptions of the jacket worn by the fleeing Tippit gunman means, and how you account for them.
Do you have an explanation?
Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle.
Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle -- What? That's an incomplete sentence. Are you trying to make a point? Make it. And cite the evidence for it. Not the speculation, or your opinion, or the conjectures by somebody on some website, but the evidence.
It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that.
Yes, we broke into his home and disabled his wifi so he could read conspiracy sites on the web. Are you serious? How can we prevent anyone from reading the conspiracy tripe that's available all over the web?
You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
"Several official sources"? Are you serious?
Here's an official source:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
It's the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony the Warren Commission published.
How much of it have YOU read?
We know you refused to read Ronald Simmons testimony when it was cited for you and links provided; you called it "boring" and rather than obtain the information you asked for directly from his Warren Commission testimony, you ignored his testimony and made up your own answers. How many other witnesses and statements did you ignore from the 26 volumes? Is it safe to say "all of them"?
Hank
The HSCA got it wrong and the autopsy doctors got it right. Oswald's bullet entered JFK's skull one inch above and slightly to the right of the EOP instead of Oswald's bullet entering JFK's skull three inches above and slightly to the right of the EOP.
