HSienzant
Philosopher
Well, for starters, it can be critiqued in the same way, with the same criticisms, you posted for Dale Myers' recreation.
Moreover, there's scant evidence his assumptions built into the case are true. He claims the bullet that struck JFK deflected upwards after striking bone in JFK's body. The autopsy disagrees with him about that. So does the HSCA pathology panel. But this CT knows more than the autopsists who had the body of JFK in front of them. This CT knows more than the HSCA pathology panel with over 100,000 autopsies conducted between them, and who studied the extant autopsy evidence to reach their conclusions.
Gee, where have I heard that refrain before?
He has a shot at Z204 striking JFK, somehow deflecting upwards, and causing the damage to the chrome over the windshield (but not the windshield damage itself, which he ignores, and not the back of the interior car mirror which also suffered damage), another bullet at Z236 striking Connally, and a third striking JFK in the head.
And he claims there was an additional shot that struck James Tague.
But as noted in an earlier post - which you ignored - he has the timeline involving Tague exactly backward. The Warren Commission determined there was a problem with the timing of the shots well before James Tague testified (he claims Tague's testimony led the Commission to conclude there was one shot that struck both men, but nothing could be further from the truth).
He puts an additional shooter on the roof of the Criminal Courts building, but no one saw a shooter there, no evidence of a shooter there was ever found, and no bullets or bullet fragments not traceable to Oswald's weapon was ever recovered.
In other words, like conspiracy theorists everywhere, he has a theory and has no evidence to support it.
And in the end, he justifies his conclusion with circular reasoning, "All I can answer is, 54 years later, he [Marcello, whom he names as a mastermind behind the assassination conspiracy] hasn't been charged. He got away with it. So he must have done something right."1
Not at all surprising that he resorts to logical fallacies to justify his conclusions.
Of course, neither you nor I have been charged either, so by his logic, we got away with it too!
Hank
______________
1 I ran across this logic in Dallas at a JFK assassination conference in the early 1990's as well. Two conspiracy theorists gave a talk concerning the Sylvia Odio incident (where three men met with this woman, whose father was anti-Castro and involved with the anti-Castro movement, and one was introduced to her as an 'loco' American named Leon Oswald who felt the President should be shot).
After exploring some of the testimony and issues, their conclusion was that Oswald was being doubled by someone attempting to frame Oswald for the assassination in advance.
My question during the question-and-answer period was simple: "If the goal was to frame Oswald a lone-nut pro-Castro assassin, why would the conspirators put him in the company of anti-Castro forces? How does that frame him for being a lone-nut pro-Castro assassin?"
They conferred for a moment with the microphone covered by their hand, and announced their momentous conclusion: "We don't know, but it worked!"
Hilarious.
Last edited:
