Oswald's shirt in direct sunlight did appear much lighter and especially when contrasted with the relative darkness of the background of the 6th floor.
OMG. I cannot believe you're wheeling out this old Bill Chapman chestnut.
I don't know about you John, but when I'm walking about in full daylight the colours aren't all washed out and white.
In fact, quite the opposite happens, colours become vivid, different hues and shades of colour become easier to distinguish,
If someone is wearing a brown shirt it doesn't become white when the sun shines on it and to suggest it does is Tinfoil.
When daylight shines on a colour it becomes the fullest version of that colour it can be.
Yes, it becomes washed out in a badly contrasted photograph like the one you've posted, but to suggest that this is what reality is like in daylight is...not too clever, shall we say.
And I think you can put away your suggestion that this point has been easily "refuted".
Far from it, you've just made yourself look a bit silly is all.
Four eyewitnesses describing a white/off white coloured shirt. Open at the collar. Not worn by Oswald.
Where does Euins say the "top" of Oswald's head? And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up? Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun.
Euins doesn't say "top".
It is something I've inferred from three things:
1] Euins constantly refers to a "bald spot". A bald spot is usually found somewhere on top of the head.
2] Euins constantly refers to the bald spot
on the man's head. This supports point #1
3] When Specter asks Euins to describe where the bald spot is Euins points to a spot "about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is." Specter's use of the phrase "
above where your hairline is" can only realistically be interpreted as meaning on top of the man's head.
I doubt even you can twist this phrase to mean a receding hairline although I'm sure you'll have a good go.
"And how could he even see the top of Oswald's head when Oswald was 6 floors up?"If he saw the man standing up it would have been impossible to see a bald spot on top of the man's head but he would have easily seen a receding hairline. The fact that Euins describes that the man had to make a specific maneuver before he could see the bald spot confirms he is not talking about a receding hairline:
Mr. Euins.
All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.He saw the bald spot BECAUSE the man moved his head in a certain way.
What's interesting about this is that the bald spot only becomes visible when the man looks down the rifle. From Euins point of view this would mean the man had to lean his head to the left before the bald spot became visible. This indicates that the man was shooting the rifle left-handed. Once again pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
"Imo Euins was referring to Oswald's receding hairline which is accentuated by being out in the sun."Yeah John, what you've done here is decide what Euins meant.
If any CTer tried the same thing you and the boys would be up in arms.
You have literally based this view on your own belief rather than let the evidence inform that belief.
And if you think you have "easily explained" Euins away then you need to wake up as you are clearly dreaming.
Euins did.
No, John, Euins did not refer to a receding hairline.
He never said anything of the sort. At any time.
He was referring to a bald spot on top of the man's head that became visible to him when the man tilted his head to the left in order to look down the rifle.
On the flip side, Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards clearly saw the man's hair and neither man mentioned one of Oswald's most distinguishing features, his receding hairline.
And Arnold Rowland went one step further and explicitly expressed that he didn't think the man had a receding hairline.
It's funny to think that by writing "Euins did" you think you've "easily explained" away another piece of evidence clearly pointing away from Oswald as the shooter.
A man with receding hair at 23 is unusual and this condition is more likely for a man in his 30's
Hmmm...you've kinda missed the point here buddy.
If Brennan saw Oswald and his receding hairline at the line-up why would he suddenly look younger.
Are you saying his receding hairline made him look older when he was in the Sniper's Nest but younger in the police station?
According to you Brennan is supposed to be describing the same man,
But that doesn't seem to be the case. Yet again.
Easily explained away?
I don't think so.
So the shooter stayed behind?
8 seconds? 3 second window?
According to the time trials carried out at the behest of the Warren Commission to demonstrate that Oswald could have made it down to the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker got there, Oswald could indeed make make it with 3 seconds to spare. Close but doable. However, in order to achieve this time the assassin, played by Agent Howlett, had to begin his descent immediately after the last shot was fired.
Brennan's description of the shooter standing by the window admiring his handiwork puts him outside this 3 second window.
Mr. BELIN. Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
From Eyewitness To History:
"
My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor... By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do."Jack said a lot of things which were very odd.
There's no arguing with that.
There are holes in Garners recollection, as well as Adams. I.E. Adams saw Lovelady and Shelley as she left the building but they didn't re-enter for quite a while.
The Stroud document begs to differ regarding Garner's recollection and it was Shelley and his sidekick Lovelady who had the holes in
their recollections, not Adams.
Oswald had enough time. Iirc the HSCA did a 56 second time, the WC studies were at a much relaxed speed.
Adams and Styles were in motion before the limo had reached the underpass. Tom Dillard's picture, taken seconds after the last shot shows an empty window where they should be. Oswald did not have enough time to get down to the 4th floor before Garner was in position, a couple of minutes later Truly and Baker came up the stairs after their encounter with Oswald on the 2nd floor but there had been no sign of Oswald clomping across the 4th floor on his way downstairs in between.
A report with the "coke" reference that had was crossed out and I believe was not written by him?
This 'report', which was more like a basic statement, was written up and signed by Baker and it referred to the man in the lunchroom drinking a coke when Baker saw him. The reference to "drinking a coke" was indeed crossed out but by Baker who had to initial his crossing out.
This is confirmed by Oswald's reported statement that he had just purchased a coke when Baker came in.
Even you must admit that there wasn't enough time for Oswald to be admiring his handiwork from the Sniper's Nest window then purchasing a coke before Baker entered the lunchroom.
Oswald on the 6th floor and was directly above the 2 men and would have heard them when they arrived at the window directly below and Oswald would have had a great view and would have been keeping an eye on employees movements.
Not even worth a reply.
It was always Oswald.
What an amazing explanation for something that completely refutes the Warren Commission's own narrative.
You've really "easily explained" that away.
Bonnie Ray said he sat in the isle where his coke was and never went close to the sniper's nest.
I have a theory that Williams when looking for his friends would have checked all the windows because why wouldn't he check the windows overlooking Elm? and would have seen Oswald and perhaps stayed there with Oswald and had his lunch then went down when he heard his friends arrive. In fact the stories coming from these men was a little flexible as they got their stories straight. I reckon Williams who was black wanted no part of being with Oswald in the minutes before they assassination.
In fact the WC I believe share this same theory because when this came up at Williams testimony Dulles suddenly and unexpectedly brought up if Williams had trouble with the law, why at this precise time while questioning would Dulles try this tactic?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
This sort of thinking sets you apart.
It would be something I would like to discuss more but this post is already too long.
As I have just demonstrated, each and every one of your refutations is easily explained away and you haven't even confronted yourself with the actual Mountain of evidence of Oswald's guilt, why is that, Dan?
JohnM
You've not explained away a single point.
In fact you've dug an even bigger hole for yourself.
Your explanation for how Oswald saw Norman and Jarman after they had just entered the TSBD building is hilarious and not worth getting into.
Other than that, you've not really done yourself many favours.
As for Oswald's guilt, at no point have I ever doubted Oswald's guilt. He was guilty as hell.
He just didn't take the shots and every single piece of credible evidence available regarding who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
