If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Paul May]

Well, I’m not going to be dragged threw 50+ years of old conspiracy thinking. Thanks for response.

[Thomas Graves]

For starters, there are multiple photos of the crime scene where the spent shells are in different positions. This proves nothing except tampering with evidence, which we see all over this case. Provide the evidence that puts Oswald in that window, firing any shots. Who was up there? Did the person in this window actually hit anyone with the "humanitarian weapon"? There is evidence of shooters from behind, but likely in other locations, since the trajectories don't line up with the TSBD. The backyard photos are extremely suspicious and not something I would use to buttress any arguments. Nearly every piece of evidence in the case has dubious origins and in many cases the chain of possession is shattered. If Oswald was the killer, all the evidence would fit together perfectly. Nothing of the sort is evident in this case. From the badgering of witnesses by Specter and Belin, to the murdering of witnesses who saw things contrary to the official story, there's an endless amount of contradictory evidence. I think it's a tremendous injustice that Oswald was framed for this. Instead of focusing on the real culprits, so many were led down the primrose path. This was clearly a political assassination orchestrated by LBJ, Hoover, and others since they both had much to gain by JFK's death and they are responsible for the cover-up.
  I don't know any serious researchers who believe there were only three shots fired. It ignores the testimony of too many witnesses and common sense. Even the pathetic HSCA concluded at least four shots were fired, and there's evidence of several more. First let's look at the Silly bullet theory. We know from the autopsy witnesses that the entire theory is totally impossible since the back shot did not exit. How is this shot a threat to Connally? So that's one shot. Then there are multiple wounds from the rear on Connally. Was this one bullet or two? The other is the entrance wound in JFK's throat. This is another bullet that apparently didn't exit. But there's much more evidence to consider. What about the dent in the chrome of the limousine? The Tague wounding. The hole in the windshield (which is not seen until after the head shots). Other reports suggest at least a couple of missed shots (one in the grass, another in the street). Then there's the head shots. Seems from the medical evidence that there were at least two head shots and one was from the front at the right temple according to multiple witnesses. The Zapruder and Nix films show the president's head moving violently back and to the left. There's a massive hole in the right rear of the head that was covered up. Multiple eyewitnesses reported shots from the knoll. Photographic evidence shows a huge crowd of witnesses running up the knoll afterward. I'd love to see the "explanations" for this overwhelming evidence of multiple shooters. It's the totality of the evidence that's compelling to me.

Dear James,

How do you figure one of the three shells ended up over in the far corner by itself?

Because Fritz or somebody intuited that the ejection of the sharply-angled-down first shot's casing (i.e., while the sniper was still standing and not yet kneeling) would tend to put it over there, or because Fritz or somebody decided to chuck one over there for good luck, or because somebody accidentally kicked it over there?

Hmm?

--  MWT 

[Jim Brunsman]

I don't know, and only the people involved know the real story. But apparently it's innocent that there are multiple stories of how the shells are found. Any investigator would be curious about that, right? Of all the things I wrote, THAT'S what you focus on? All righty then...

[Jim Brunsman]

Of course, when accurate facts are presented, some bravely run away...

[Paul May]

I don't know, and only the people involved know the real story. But apparently it's innocent that there are multiple stories of how the shells are found. Any investigator would be curious about that, right? Of all the things I wrote, THAT'S what you focus on? All righty then...

Investigators can look at one piece of isolated evidence and reach different conclusions. However, the totality of ALL the evidence, when taken together with common sense thrown in can only reach one conclusion.

[Jim Brunsman]

Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.

[Thomas Graves]

Exactly right about the totality of the evidence. When presented with facts you don't like, you just ignore them and double down on a totally discredited account of the assassination. How many lone nutters have ever admitted they were duped by false evidence? None that I know of. When I was an adolescent studying the Warren Commission summary, I bought the "lone nut" story until I started researching more. It boils down to a matter of research, intellectual honesty and integrity. Again, no credible researcher can look at the evidence and believe there were only three shots. Happy to debate anyone concerning the case, but no matter how solid the evidence, there's very little chance of changing anyone's opinion. So why bother to try? Because the work of journalists on the assassination has been extremely poor. CIA control of the media is well known, even today, which is why I admire the independent researchers who have uncovered the evidence needed to totally destroy the Warren Commission's embarrassing whitewash.

Dear James,

Independent "researchers"? 

Like "Angleton specialists" Tom Mangold and Jefferson Morley, both of whom get things so wrong because they rely so heavily on bogus, duped-by-KGB sources like Leonard McCoy (see the five-page section called "The McCoy intervention" in the PDF by Tennent H. Bagley, below), HSCA perjurer John L. Hart,  and probable-mole, garrulous, Russia-born George "Teddy Bear" Kisevalter (see my thread on him in the Off Topic section) ?

LOL

No wonder you're so confused.

--  MWT 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362

[Michael Walton]

Jim,

Tom's 76 years old. He's bored. You're not going to get any semblance of an honest debate from him. I remember several years ago he posted some interesting stuff over on another forum. But they got tired of his shtick there and booted him out. So he loves to tease here, then switches tactics and says the Russians did it. That's the most you're going to get out him. Just an FYI...