Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Jerry Organ]

Some of them are — and you’re right to call those out too. But the WC conclusions stand or fall on their own merits.

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

[Martin Weidmann]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

There isn't a single LN or CT scenario that holds up under scrutiny. If there was one, there wouldn't have been a half-century of major disagreements and discussion.

The Warren Commission were not prosecuting the case. They were merely giving an explanation to satisfy the public and it failed to convince at least part of the population. By hiding the evidence for 75 years (as was the original intention) they lost credibility from day one.

[John Iacoletti]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

Depends on what you mean by “hold up”. Some are based on no more assumption and speculation than the official narrative.

[Bill Chapman]

Only "some" CT scenarios don't hold up? Do you know of any that do?

Depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose. Were it only that bias didn't carry so much heft around here.

And life in general. Peace out, ppl.

[Colin Crow]

I can't see them removing the strip from the wrong window, if that's what occurred, because that window was closed. No reason to believe the strip from that window had any significance in terms of fingerprints. The weatherstrip from the window next to the SN may have been removed if only to have something to carrying out evidence like the paper bag and the pop bottle.

Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box. Day also mentions this in his testimony. The assumption may have also been because of the hull arrangement. The closed window wooden strip, next to the open one, is missing in early photos of the SN. This explains why the lengths of the strip in evidence differ over time. Early on it is described as about a foot shorter than the final version. The initial one broke or was already broken when removed. Later on Day organised removal of the longer one from the open window.

[Walt Cakebread]

Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box. Day also mentions this in his testimony. The assumption may have also been because of the hull arrangement. The closed window wooden strip, next to the open one, is missing in early photos of the SN. This explains why the lengths of the strip in evidence differ over time. Early on it is described as about a foot shorter than the final version. The initial one broke or was already broken when removed. Later on Day organised removal of the longer one from the open window.

Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box.

"the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached."

So Mooney imagined that the scar on the box indicated that the scar was made by the recoil of the rifle , and the rifle was aimed south and east ( toward Houston street) of the window? 

Can you provide verification that" Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box." ?

[Colin Crow]

Before 3pm, those who viewed the SN assumed the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached. Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box.

"the sniper was shooting as the motorcade approached."

So Mooney imagined that the scar on the box indicated that the scar was made by the recoil of the rifle , and the rifle was aimed south and east ( toward Houston street) of the window? 

Can you provide verification that" Mooney makes reference to this obliquely when talking about the scar on the box." ?

Walt you need to add what Day said about the crease to understand Mooney's assumption.

Mooney

And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.

Day

There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt you need to add what Day said about the crease to understand Mooney's assumption.

Mooney

And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.

Day

There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.

There was a scar on the top of or the top side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It was not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.

Thank you Colin.....   So the lead detective ( J.C.Day) deduced that the scar had nothing to do with the assassination.   ( And he was correct ) and yet that scar was included in the Warren Commission disinformation to continue to create confusion ......