The Patsy

[Bill Chapman]

Over-exposed pics have no bearing on what we see in real life.
Daylight enhances colour.
The open-necked shirt is described as being so light coloured it's almost white by three of the witnesses. Edwards just describes it as white.
Oswald's brown shirt would be seen as such. In no way could it be described as being almost white.

Brennan's affidavit:

"Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry."

Not sure when Ball changed Euin's use of "bald spot".
Specter questioned him for the WC hearings.

"Now tell us why Ball would make that distinction if Euins was describing an isolated, actual bald spot on TOP of the head."

If Ball did make this distinction it would be because he knew Oswald didn't have a bald spot and Euins was unequivocal that the shooter had a bald spot. Nowhere does he mention a receding hairline and I'm pretty sure he could've discerned between the two.
It's cool you don't seem to question the notion of Ball telling a witness what he actually saw, rather than the other way round.

The couple of points you raise against the list of evidence pointing away from Oswald being the shooter have been adequately dealt with.
Does this not give you pause for thought - that all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald?
In the "Patsy" model I'm proposing Oswald supplied the rifle, which was the main piece of evidence that tied him to the crime. That was the purpose of the MC - to incriminate Oswald. But he did not take the shots, as the evidence seems to confirm.

_I thought to do this: Ball(?) because I wasn't sure who was questioning Euins
_I just checked and see that Euins straightened up the 'white spot' origin somewhat
_The circle in my graphic is meant to make it clear that it is 'ground zero' regarding the arguments about the exact definition of 'bald spot'

If you are going to isolate the rest of the assassination from the 6th floor fun, then no pause at all from me

[Dan O'meara]

_I thought to do this: Ball(?) because I wasn't sure who was questioning Euins
_I just checked and see that Euins straightened up the 'white spot' origin somewhat
_The circle in my graphic is meant to make it clear that it is 'ground zero' regarding the arguments about the exact definition of 'bald spot'

If you are going to isolate the rest of the assassination from the 6th floor fun, then no pause at all from me

I'm not sure what the "rest" of the assassination is beyond who took the shots on the 6th floor, the "fun", as you call it.
If you are referring to things like Oswald's purchase of the rifle or his going on the run and shooting Tippit, these things cannot be isolated from the actual assassination. The narrative I am working on must include all of these aspects but also include why all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald - something your narrative does not do.
It must also include an explanation for why almost every man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to the authorities. Again, this is something your own narrative fails to cover.
The Patsy narrative covers all of these aspects.

[Bill Chapman]

I'm not sure what the "rest" of the assassination is beyond who took the shots on the 6th floor, the "fun", as you call it.
If you are referring to things like Oswald's purchase of the rifle or his going on the run and shooting Tippit, these things cannot be isolated from the actual assassination. The narrative I am working on must include all of these aspects but also include why all the evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald - something your narrative does not do.
It must also include an explanation for why almost every man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to the authorities. Again, this is something your own narrative fails to cover.
The Patsy narrative covers all of these aspects.

I guess you missed my telegram, but at the end of the day (well at least at 12:30pm and 1:15pm-ish), Oswald wound up doing the most important 'pointing' actually.

CTers are awfully quick to call people liars; in fact one of your ilk insists that if somebody turns out to be wrong about something he truly believes then he is a liar (instead of just wrong).

Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?

[Dan O'meara]

I guess you missed my telegram, but at the end of the day (well at least at 12:30pm and 1:15pm-ish), Oswald wound up doing the most important 'pointing' actually.

CTers are awfully quick to call people liars; in fact one of your ilk insists that if somebody turns out to be wrong about something he truly believes then he is a liar (instead of just wrong).

Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?

First of all, Bill, you can cut it out with the "your ilk" and "you people".
I've made a solid argument about the evidence concerning who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination and, for whatever reason, you're getting personal.

"Tell us why any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody. Is everything in life sinister to you people?"

You're completely missing my point.
It is a fact that nearly everyone on the 6th floor that day lies in their various statements to the authorities regarding their actions around the time of the assassination.
You have to deny this inconvenient fact but I'm not in a position to do so.
I am compelled to ask myself "what the f%ck is going on here?".

You asked the question - why [would] any of these TSBD characters would have cause to lie to anybody?
You tell me because it's something you have to account for in your own narrative.
And if you want to get into a debate about whether they indeed lied or not, that's fine by me.

[John Iacoletti]

The power of the LNer position is that they have a narrative for the events of the day.

There's nothing particularly "powerful" about making up a narrative that they cannot substantiate with reliable evidence.

As far as consensus is concerned I'd also like to propose the following starting point - that Oswald was a "Patsy". He was deeply involved in he events of that day but was unaware he was going to be taking the rap for it. As such, Oswald was not involved in the actual shooting of JFK.

Sure.  All it takes to get there would be to demonstrate that Oswald was deeply involved in the events of that day.

[John Iacoletti]

Actually, yes. Listen to what he says before the patsy line. He's clearly referring to his stint in the USSR.

Two separate sentences.  LN evangelists always think that their subjective assumptions are "clear".

[John Iacoletti]

Cherryholmes wrote a lot of things. Especially in his book written years after Brennans death (Thus no Brennan around to proofread)

More Chapman BS.  You don't know when the book was written.

[John Iacoletti]

CTers are awfully quick to call people liars; in fact one of your ilk insists that if somebody turns out to be wrong about something he truly believes then he is a liar (instead of just wrong).

Says the guy who accuses Frazier and Randle of lying about the length of the package.