Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[manifesto]

Myers syncs that frame with Z150.

I'm OK with any point from Z140 to Z160 as a reasonable spot to sync that frame to.

So, why not, say, 137 to 164?

 

[Disbelief]

Hey, I know it is not possible to persuade any of you of anything that goes against the core believes in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

You can't persuade anyone.

Again, I have not access to the real evidence since it has been in the hands of the culprits since day one.

Earlier you said you could put together a comprehensive theory, yet now you can't? So you can't even put together a theory what is available in the public arena already? You are admitting defeat before beginning.

The only thing one can do is point out the flaws in the ’official’ theory/mythology and show that they are the result from a cover up directed from the absolute top of US officialdom.

Well you're failing, because you haven't pointed out any flaws using evidence.

I’ll stop when you do.

Odd, I've not addressed you as such and you came out swinging about your made up church stuff. Poisoning the well, as it were.

I'll pretty much bow out, unless you can provide a comprehensive theory like you said you could.

 

[bknight]

So, why not, say, 137 to 164?

Myers has the synch at H648-Z150, leave it that and argue they don't look synched to you, or I'll be back later with a reason.

 

[traxy]

3 witnesses testifying they saw Oswald kill Tippit.

Correct?

Sorry my friend, it doesn't work that way.

15 witnesses saw a man either shoot JD Tippit, pull out his revolver to empty spent shells, or flee on foot south on Patterson Street with a revolver in his hand.

This all happened in the span of seconds.

It is unreasonable to suggest that the man who shot Tippit and the man seen fleeing down Patterson Street with a revolver seconds later were different people. Clearly they were the same person.

8 witnesses positively identified Oswald as either the man who shot Tippit, or the man fleeing the scene of Tippit's murder seconds later with a gun in his hand...the same gun he was arrested with, tied ballistically to Tippit's murder.

Either way, Oswald is guilty.

 

[traxy]

So, why not, say, 137 to 164?

Because those points don't look close enough to H648 when put side-by-side.

Z140-160 is a more than reasonable margin of error.

 

[Whip]

So, pointing out flaws in the evidence against Oswald isn’t enough for you?

when will you actually be doing this with evidence by the way? I've been waiting quite while so far.

 

[smartcooky]

That is why Myers is trying to fool us with fancy scientific concepts as ”epipolar geometry”, because he understands the conditions. Without scientifically fixed points in a moving space all measurements becomes subjective and aproximate at best and no, so far you haven’t showed that Myers didn’t really have to lie if he had followed your reasoned eye-balling.

You continue to use terminology that you are utterly ignorant about, despite the fact that I have told you this before!

Here....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12277295

...and here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12277411

...and here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12277495

Epipolar Geometry is NOT USED TO SYNCHRONISE MOVIE FRAMES IN TIME. It is used to align movie frames in space. Myers uses this technique to make the 3D recreation of the moving vehicles in Dealey Plaza in order to build the CGI movie recreation. If you had bothered to read his paper properly (and I have) you would understand this.

When Myers synchronized H648 with Z150, he did so the same way that traxy and I have, by eyeball, noticing events that are happening which are common to both frames. Again, if you bothered to read Myers paper, you would see that he makes no mention of Epipolar Geometry until the section on "Triangulation". At this point he has already synchronised the Zapruder and Hughes films.

"Although the presidential limousine is not visible during the latter moments of the sequences Hughes filmed on Houston Street – particularly the one that depicts H.B. McLain’s motorcycle – there are visual references that are common to both the Hughes film and the Zapruder film. For instance, the Hughes film not only captures the presidential limousine as it travels north on Houston but the seven motorcade vehicles and six motorcycle escorts that follow it."

"The Zapruder film also captures the presidential limousine as well as a number of the same motorcade vehicles and motorcycle escorts that trail it. Several of these vehicles can be seen travelling north on Houston Street and making the turn onto Elm Street in the background of the film."​

I urge you to read Myers' whole paper (you obviously have not at this point) rather than just automatically believing and the parroting the crap you read on your nutcase conspiracy websites.

 

[Axxman300]

3 witnesses testifying they saw Oswald kill Tippit.

Correct?

The main witness would be Oswald's .38 which he used to kill Tippit. He dumped the shells at the scene of the crime, and they are a match to the gun they took out his hand at the theater...the gun he admitted to having on him.

Checkmate.

 

[OKBob]

Again, I have not access to the real evidence since it has been in the hands of the culprits since day one.

The only thing one can do is point out the flaws in the ’official’ theory/mythology and show that they are the result from a cover up directed from the absolute top of US officialdom.

This is very convenient for you, isn't it? You get to pose as the great flaw-pointer and patsy-anointer without having to prove anything. Except for one problem: you beg the question about an official "cover up" that is purportedly hobbling your efforts. That is an assumption you'll have to prove in order to be excused from providing the underlying facts of a conspiracy. Please provide actual evidence--not possibilities, guesses, protestations, or ipse dixits--of such a cover-up.

 

[CORed]

when will you actually be doing this with evidence by the way? I've been waiting quite while so far.

Well, he's pointed out several "flaws" that aren't really flaws at all, such as the fact that the FBI printed off the relevant documents from microfilm archive of the mail order company that sold Oswald the Carcano, when, apparently according to manifesto's "standards" that he pulled out of his own posterior, they should have confiscated the company's entire microfilm archive.

 

[OKBob]

[...] according to manifesto's "standards" that he pulled out of his own posterior [...]

Precisely. Or what has been called on this forum the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy.

 

[jeffas69]

He could not identify the killer and therefore he did not want to come to the lineup.

What you say is not the same as:

"I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not."

Did he? Curly hair? Square hairline in the neck? Dark skinn complexion?

Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him that looked like me.
Mr. BENAVIDES - No. that is all.
Mr. BELIN - What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He wasn't dark.
Mr. BELIN - Average complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; a little bit darker than average.
Mr. BELIN - My complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine.
Mr. BELIN - His skin looked ruddier than mine? I might say for the record, that I was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, just your size.
Mr. BELIN - Did he look like me?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; your face, not your face, but just your size.
Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back

You are a horrible witness.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And no, no one has been able to connect the weapon to the Tippit murder and no, Oswald could not have bought the weapon in the way lined out by the FBI.

Yep, already proved. That's why it's the null hypothesis.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What is it in the HSCA scientific acoustical evidence that you find wanting?

You also find it wanting since it's been debunked so many times and you CTs (s) can't refute that?

 

[HSienzant]

But within three minutes of the assassination, he did realize that, because he did leave the building,

As did a number of other employees, calling it the day.

Within three minutes of the assassination? No, that's false. Nobody except Oswald was inside the building at the time of the shooting and left to go home within three minutes of the assassination. Why did Oswald do that? How did he even know there was an assassination attempt, if he was sitting in the lunch room eating his lunch at the time of the shooting? How did he know the shots came from the Depository within three minutes of the shooting, and that there'd be no more work that day?

...he did take a bus and a cab in an effort to get back to the rooming house,

In an effort? Yes, there were a traffic jam beacause of the assassination so he took a cab after offering it to a lady who seemed to be in a hurry.

Which doesn't mean he wasn't in a hurry too.
He took the bus. And then a cab. He apparently was about to surrender the cab to a woman, and did offer it to her, but the cab driver [William Whaley] said another one would be along. (Oswald might have figured it was easier to surrender the cab and catch the next one than wait while the cab driver called her another cab as she requested). Why his urgency to get home by taking a cab? Why the urgency to leave the bus - how did he know the traffic jam wouldn't clear momentarily -- remember, he left without witnessing the assassination within three minutes of the shooting). And why did he take the cab PAST his rooming house by a few blocks?
== QUOTE ==
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. The front seat. And about that time an old lady, I think she was an old lady, I don't remember nothing but her sticking her head down past him in the door and said, "Driver, will you call me a cab down here?"
She had seen him get this cab and she wanted one, too, and he opened the door a little bit like he was going to get out and he said, "I will let you have this one," and she says, "No, the driver can call me one."
So, I didn't call one because I knew before I could call one would come around the block and keep it pretty well covered.
== UNQUOTE ==

change his clothes,

Not so nice weareing your dirty working clothes when not working, no.

That's a major concession you don't even realize the import of. I'll be returning to this point in the future to remind you that you conceded he changed his clothes at the rooming house.

and grab his revolver,

Says who?

Oswald admitted it in custody. He *knew* the police knew he had the gun pulled from his hand in the theatre, so he wasn't stupid enough to try to lie about that. (Unlike conspiracy theorists, who don't know what Oswald admitted in custody and what he denied). He did lie about where he bought it, saying he bought it in Houston. But he didn't.

and then, within 15 minutes of leaving the rooming house, shoot an officer dead

Says who?

The witnesses others here are quoting back to you in detail as well as the hard evidence of the shells found at the scene matching his revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons of the world.

and then attempt to shoot another about 35 minutes after that?

There are at least three different stories of how this incident developed, which one do you like the most?

What three different stories? Do you mean witnesses recalled the incident differently and you're pretending those differences are somehow meaningful? Start at the top, tell us which three 'stories' you're referencing, and which one you favor, and why.

Why did Oswald repetingly yell: ”I’m not resisting arrest! I’m not resisting arrest!”, while trying to kill the arresting officer?

That's a false claim from the website you're cribbing from. He only started complaining about police brutality and claiming he was not resisting arrest AFTER he was handcuffed.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see police officers hit him after they got the handcuffs on him?
Mr. BREWER - No; I didn't see them.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see any police officer hit Oswald after Oswald stopped fighting?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.
== UNQUOTE ==

Is that your theory?

No? It seems to be your theory? Problems with your short time memory? Seven seconds and it’s all gone?

I'm pointing out the problems with your argument that Oswald left the building within three minutes of the shooting without witnessing the assassination. These points are either
1. A logical extension of your arguments or
2. Based on the known evidence.

Now, let's remind you of your argument about the rifle: It wasn't his.

Not according to the evidence/lack of evidence, no, it wasn’t his rifle.

Right, that's your argument. That's what I said. So why does he leave the building in a hurry? He has no knowledge of an assassination attempt. He was quietly eating lunch on the first floor according to his statements in custody, right?

He didn't order it or possess it, and the paper trail and the backyard photos are fakes.

The rifle paper trail is fake. The backyard photo could be fake or it could have been taken in the belief it served the purpose in creating his legend as a commie rebel in order to infiltrate commie rebels.

Regardless of the details you're quibbling over, what you're claiming is the paper trail and the photographs don't establish he ordered, paid for, and possessed the rifle. So when a rifle was left behind on the sixth floor (whether a Mauser as you were arguing a month ago, or the C2766 rifle Kleins paperwork indicates was shipped to PO Box 2915) Oswald couldn't have known about that at 12:33 on 11/22/63. Right? So why'd he leave the building so quickly to go to the rooming house and collect his revolver? It wasn't because he thought there'd be no more work, because he couldn't even know about the assassination attempt from the lunchroom.

Also, he didn't bring his rifle to the building that morning.

Correct:
1. He didn’t own a rifle to bring.
2. The Fraizer siblings couldn’t identify the taped paper bag allegedly used to carry the rifle.
3. The Frazier siblings described Oswald carrying the bag in ways that excluded it from containing a broken down Carcano = too short.
4. The Frazier siblings described a much shorter bag with no tape on it looking like a common grocery bag, way shorter than the alleged bag who was allegedly used to bring the murder weapon to the TSBD.
5. The alleged rifle bag had no traces of weapon oil in it, in spite of the Carcano being well oiled when allegedly found on the sixth floor.
6. No one knows who actually found the bag on the floor in the ’snipers nest’.
7. No photograph of the bag on said floor before allegedly picking it up.
8. Shall I continue?

No need. Most of the above is wrong in substance (It was J.C.Day's assistant who picked up the bag and moved it before photographing it. Proper crime scene rules are not to replace the evidence into the scene once it's been moved). But that's not the issue here I'm trying to get you to address.

It's quite simple: Why did Oswald leave the Depository in such a hurry with such a need to get to the rooming house to get his revolver, if he had no knowledge that his rifle was used to kill JFK? Really, he couldn't know more than Roy Truly or Billy Lovelady or Richard Caster or any other employee of the building. None of them left to go home within three minutes of the shooting and get a revolver. Only Oswald. What did he know at 12:33 that none of the other employees knew?

So when the rifle shots rang out, he couldn't be thinking, "Oh no, I just gave my rifle to that guy to borrow for the weekend!" (or anything of that nature).

Well, since he didn’t own a rifle, why should he think that?

And if your argument is true that he didn't own a rifle and didn't commit the shooting, you should be able to explain why he left work within three minutes of the shooting, not to return. So explain why. It's only your pretense that other employees did the same thing as quickly. You won't be able to name one other employee who did what you concede Oswald did.

So, just tell us: What and how did he realize "he was about to be used as a patsy" within three minutes of the assassination that caused him to leave the building in such a hurry, he did take a bus and a cab to get back to his rooming house and he did grab his revolver and shoot a cop, didn't he?

See above. He probably realized that he was set up as a patsy when the reporters started to yell questions to him about his whereabouts during the assassination of JFK. As he himself explain in the short press conferens he gave.

Nothing above explains that. And if he only realized he was a patsy *AFTER* his arrest, as you're explaining now, that doesn't explain why he left the building within three minutes (not knowing about his rifle being planted, no knowing there was a shooting, not knowing the President was dead) and went back to his rooming house to get his revolver.

The reason for being arrested was that he was a suspect in the killing of police officer J.D. Tippit.

We know that. That doesn't explain why he left the building so quickly.

What was his first clue "he was about to be used as a patsy", do you think?

See above.

Doesn't help you. You're claiming he realized he was a patsy after his arrest. He needs to realize it within the first three minutes of the shooting. You just admitted your argument makes no sense, because you have Oswald acting at 12:33pm on knowledge you claim he didn't obtain until about 2:10 pm.

Or is that another one for the "more on this later" pile?

I’m doing my best responding to the barrage of insults and claims coming from you and your fellow members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut. My very best.

And as others have told you, you're failing miserably.

Evidence is evidence. Faith is faith. I have repeatedly shown you the evidence (including some in this very post) and you have repeatedly ignored it, and repeated your false claims. The only 'church' here is the one that you are repeating the mythology of in every post you make.

Your arguments are at cross purposes.

Are they? Explain.

Explained in detail above. In summary, by arguing Oswald didn't bring his weapon to the building, you remove all reason for him to leave as quickly as he did, so you're unable to explain why he left at 12:33pm.

But you're used to that, aren't you?

No. Should I be? Explain.

You should be. You advance arguments that conflict with each other plenty of times. All your arguments are to one end, to try to make Oswald appear innocent. But to do that you fling whatever you can against a wall, hoping some of it will stick.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The dirt was maybe harmful before the election for his second term, but not so after being president.

You understand that Kennedy intended to run for a second four-year term in office as President in November of 1964, right? Why wouldn't "the dirt" be harmful to his chances of being re-elected before the election of 1964?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Before being apprehended, yes, but Oswald was yelling this while being severely beaten by the arresting officer.

A lie. I quoted above the testimony of shoe store manager Johnny Brewer who was there and said no such thing occurred. His statements : *Evidence*. Your statements : *not evidence*.

I do not want a conspiracy, I want the truth to be known and the culprits brought to justice.

Culprits (plural) = conspiracy. Yup, you said you want a conspiracy. You said you believe in a conspiracy. Seems like you're still begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.

Posthumous if necessary.

You think there should be a trial of dead defendents? How do you think is the best way to bring these 'culprits' to justice posthumously?

I believe that Oswald believed that he had infiltrated a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and when informing his US Intel handler got the answer that the culprits would be arrested before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza.

Nobody cares what you believe. What does the evidence indicate? You seem to go silent when asked to present the evidence.

Oswald did not have the qualities expected from an assassin...

What qualities are those? And which was he missing? And the source for both lists you won't post here.

Name one proven lie from Oswald. One.

In custody? He claimed he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.

Other places? Just off the top of my head:

• He told his landlady he and Marina were Czech.
• He claimed he was just out of the Marines when he applied for the TSBD job.
• He listed fictitious people as references.
• He made up a fictitious doctor and a fictitious vaccination certificate necessary for his entry to Mexico, using the bottom of a coffee can as the "doctor's seal".
• He registered at the rooming house as O.H.Lee, and that caused problems when Ruth Paine called the rooming house at Marina's request and asked for Mr. Oswald.

I could probably come up with a couple of dozen easily.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, he did not identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit:

Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN - Were they newspaper pictures or television pictures, or both, or neither?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, television pictures and newspaper pictures. The thing lasted about a month, I believe, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Pardon.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I showed--I believe they showed pictures of him every day for a long time there.​

When asked to come in to a lineup the day of the murder, he said that he didn’t see the killer well enough to be able to identify him.

In the WC-testimony above he ”figured” it was Oswalds since he had been in the news for months after the murder as the killer of JFK and Tippit.

No, he said the man he saw in the papers and on TV *resembled* the guy he saw doing the shooting. And of course, that guy was being identified as Lee Oswald. So he called the guy Oswald. I changed the emphasis to the part you ignored.

A year after his testimony his brother mysteriously got shot to death in a restaurant by an unknown killer. Since he and his brother looked almost identical, Benavides was convinced that he himself was the actual target and that so beceause he wouldn’t identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.

Another example of having it both ways. Conspiracy sources in the past typically claimed the shooting occurred in February of 1964 - about two months before the testimony of Domingo and it was intended for Domingo as an attempt to either silence him from identifying Oswald or intimidate him into identifying Oswald.

Here's how Robert Groden treated it:
"After Domingo Benavides witnessed the Tippit murder, he began to receive numerous threats upon his life. Along with other eyewitnesses, had had claimed that Tippit's killer did not look anything like Lee Harvey Oswald. After Benavides brother Edward (who looked very much like Domingo) was killed in a bar fight — a possible case of mistaken identity — Domingo Benavides changed his story, stating that the murderer resembled Oswald." (The Killing of a President, p. 98)

But thanks to the hard work of some LN researchers (notably John McAdams), it was established that Eddy Benavides was actually shot and killed in a tavern in February of 1965, ten months after Benavides testimony, and too late to impact Domingo's testimony.

So now the conspiracy argument has changed - it was intended to kill Domingo, not to silence him before he testified, but as retribution for failing to ID Oswald.

Note the problems. Groden was claiming Benavides did ID Oswald, Manifesto is claiming Benavides didn't.

Note as well it doesn't matter to conspiracy theorists when Eddie Benavides died, before or after his brother's testimony.

Either way conspiracy theorists will argue it establishes a conspiracy and establishes conspirators killing witnessses (or trying to).

Note both Groden and Manifesto retain the "unknown killer" Nonsense. Apparently they are unaware the killer (Radford Lee Hil) confessed and served time for the offense.

And apparently the conspirators don't read conspiracy books, because they never realized they killed the wrong guy and never went back to kill Domingo, the actual witness. Last I looked, he was still running Benavides Motors in Texas.

Here's more detail: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/benavides_death.htm

14 left.

Still 15.

Hank
_______________________
I'm reminded of one of the funnier exchanges in the testimony, where Benavides, in describing the shooter, kept doing so in terms of the what the Warren Commission attorney questioning him looked like:

Mr. BELIN - Anything else you can think of about the man after you saw him? What was he wearing? What did he look like?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, he was kind of, well, just about your size.
Mr. BELIN - About my size? I am standing up.
Mr. BENAVIDES - You are about 5' 10"?
Mr. BELIN - I am between 5' 10" and 5' 11". Closer to 5' 11", I believe.
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BELIN - What color was the trousers?
Mr. BENAVIDES - They were dark.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember what kind of shirt he had on?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It was dark in color, but I don't remember exactly what color.
Mr. BELIN - Was he average weight, slender, or heavy?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was average weight.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did he have?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, dark. I mean not dark.
Mr. BELIN - Black hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No. Not black or brown, just kind of a----
Mr. BELIN - My color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else about him that looked like me.
Mr. BENAVIDES - No. that is all.
Mr. BELIN - What about his skin? Was he fair complexioned or dark complexioned?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He wasn't dark.
Mr. BELIN - Average complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; a little bit darker than average.
Mr. BELIN - My complexion?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I wouldn't say that any more. I would say he is about your complexion, sir. Of course he looked, his skin looked a little bit ruddier than mine.
Mr. BELIN - His skin looked ruddier than mine? I might say for the record, that I was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, just your size.
Mr. BELIN - Did he look like me?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; your face, not your face, but just your size.
Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time

 

[manifesto]

Sorry my friend, it doesn't work that way.

15 witnesses saw a man either shoot JD Tippit, pull out his revolver to empty spent shells, or flee on foot south on Patterson Street with a revolver in his hand.

This all happened in the span of seconds.

It is unreasonable to suggest that the man who shot Tippit and the man seen fleeing down Patterson Street with a revolver seconds later were different people. Clearly they were the same person.

8 witnesses positively identified Oswald as either the man who shot Tippit, or the man fleeing the scene of Tippit's murder seconds later with a gun in his hand...the same gun he was arrested with, tied ballistically to Tippit's murder.

Either way, Oswald is guilty.

Still, 3 of your 15 witnesses saw Oswald actually killing him. 5 more saw Oswald in connection to the killing but that is not the same as witness him actually shooting anybody, is it?

Maybe the real killer/s tried to kill Oswald too. Maybe he witnessed the shooting, got scared and fled the scene.

More on this later.

Did any of your three witnesses identify Oswald from a lineup?

 

[OKBob]

Oswald did not have the qualities expected from an assassin [...]

If You Ran the Zoo, then individuals who murder political figures would always have the qualities you expect for an assassin. Please list these qualities, so we can all be certain to identify assassins in advance.