3 ms·

I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as convincing as you do. There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted: * The

by jMyles 9y ago

I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as convincing as you do. There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted: * The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City * The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window just five seconds before the shooting began * The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?) * Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death) There are many more. I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do. I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.

jayess 9y ago
The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly. Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height). He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor. Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction). He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup. Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-... > Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds. > Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony? I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded. I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so. But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards? Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald. But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly. My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.
  - hnnoob2003 9y ago
    Your willingness to think critically and challenge "the truth" is great, especially questioning whether Howard Brennan's testimony is reliable and free from manipulation. There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit? His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      But see, this is what happens in these discussions. First, it's "100% of the evidence in Dealy Plaza implicates Oswald - he is guilty to a moral certainty, etc" - then, when you point out the actual fact pattern, the goalposts are moved miles away to talk about other happenings in Dallas that day. And then months earlier in New Orleans. And then years earlier in Russia, Japan, etc. I don't want to rehash the entire case in an HN thread, but needless to say there are very rational explanations for nearly all of the incorrect conclusions reached by the Warren Commission. I think that a sober, rational analysis suggests very, very clearly that this was a crime committed by group, rather than an individual.
jayess 9y ago
See also the Hughes film, which pretty convincingly shows "someone" in the Oswald window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI
- jMyles 9y ago
  Interesting. This is the first time I've seen the Hughes film used in an effort to show that somebody was in the window. It looks to my eyes like nobody is in the window. Although I'm loath to quote the FBI as I don't view them as a particularly credible source, I agree with their assessment of the Hughes film: > “there are no images in any of the exposures … which show the corner window … that can be interpreted in the form of an individual. The forms recorded in this window can be interpreted as in the same general shapes of boxes, found at and just behind the window in question” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=757740 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?...

by jMyles 9y ago

jayess 9y ago

The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.

jMyles 9y ago
> There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below. This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly. Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height). He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor. Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction). He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup. Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence: http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-... > Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him. I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds. > Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony? I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded. I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff? > The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them. I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so. But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards? Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald. But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly. My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.
- hnnoob2003 9y ago
  Your willingness to think critically and challenge "the truth" is great, especially questioning whether Howard Brennan's testimony is reliable and free from manipulation. There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit? His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    But see, this is what happens in these discussions. First, it's "100% of the evidence in Dealy Plaza implicates Oswald - he is guilty to a moral certainty, etc" - then, when you point out the actual fact pattern, the goalposts are moved miles away to talk about other happenings in Dallas that day. And then months earlier in New Orleans. And then years earlier in Russia, Japan, etc. I don't want to rehash the entire case in an HN thread, but needless to say there are very rational explanations for nearly all of the incorrect conclusions reached by the Warren Commission. I think that a sober, rational analysis suggests very, very clearly that this was a crime committed by group, rather than an individual.

jayess 9y ago

See also the Hughes film, which pretty convincingly shows "someone" in the Oswald window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI

jMyles 9y ago
Interesting. This is the first time I've seen the Hughes film used in an effort to show that somebody was in the window. It looks to my eyes like nobody is in the window. Although I'm loath to quote the FBI as I don't view them as a particularly credible source, I agree with their assessment of the Hughes film: > “there are no images in any of the exposures … which show the corner window … that can be interpreted in the form of an individual. The forms recorded in this window can be interpreted as in the same general shapes of boxes, found at and just behind the window in question” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=757740 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?...