If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

In the following CBStv recreation which had the same height and distances, the shooter is practically in the same position as Oswald and the lean to the left that you speak of wasn't required. So considering that Euins was 6 floors down, just how big would the bald spot be required to be seen because to be seen from Euins position it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!



And I'm no rifle expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but because the scope was mounted on the left and away from the bolt, wouldn't aiming through the scope mean that the rifle had to be on the right side of your face? But I guess he could have used the iron sight for all three shots??







JohnM

 "...it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!"

  maybe he just had the thinnest ring of hair around the bottom of his head or some kind of monk thing going on.
All I can say is 'ask Euins'.
Some people really do tilt their heads when they are taking a shot with a rifle:



Basically, Euins said he could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle (I'm paraphrasing)
If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.
You can put words in Euins' mouth or say he's talking sh!t or that he's lying for some reason. That's your choice.
But it does seem consistent with what he's saying about a bald spot and what he's not saying about a receding hairline. That's how I look at it. I'm just taking his testimony at face value.

[Martin Weidmann]

Make up your mind, either the interrogations are contradictory or tell a reliable narrative??

It's hilarious the interrogation evidence is only authentic when you say so, but when anything contradicts your conspiratorial World view, you start screaming that the interrogations are not reliable!

What in the world are you babbling about? There are contradictions in the interrogation reports, making them utterly unreliable.

But I'll play along;

Bookhout has Oswald seeing junior and another man walking through the room (without saying which room) and Fritz has him saying that he was having lunch with junior and another man when the President was shot.

Both can't be correct, so which one is the correct one?

Answer my question! Or are you simply afraid it makes you look stupid?

And there we have it, folks. The coward Mytton, who claims to be a man of integrity can't bring himself to honestly answer a simple question about a blatant contradiction between the reports of two of Oswald's interrogators.

Instead he ignores the question and runs as fast as he can.

One can only wonder why..... 

And here's another one where he goes down in flames;

Oswald was clearly referring to the room he was in.

Says who?

But to follow your "reasoning"; if Oswald referred to the room he was in, then he couldn't have been on the 6th floor, right?

Isn't that the point, if no one refers to the first floor open space as a room, then why would Oswald?



JohnM

Isn't this just hilarious? Mytton can't say what it is, when it isn't a room, and posts some vague jpg he found on the internet.

But if he had read it carefully, even the text of that jpg doesn't support his position, as it speaks about a warehouse not typically being classified as a "room". And, Mytton calling the 1st floor a warehouse, doesn't automatically make it one. Most like, the term warehouse was the only one he got a search result on Google on which he thought he could use.

Too bad that the first floor of the TSBD wasn't a warehouse as it was part of a larger building and housed offices, a lunchroom and the shipping department. It obviously had some boxes in it, otherwise the books could couldn't be packaged, but nothing like the actual storage area on the 4th, 5th and 6th floor.

And it even gets better still, because the jpg text also defines a room as being an enclosed space within a building with walls, a floor and a ceiling and, guess what, the 1st floor of the TSBD has exactly that! I would add, that a room also has at least one door and, go figure, there is a multitude of doors on the first floor as well.

It just goes to show how desperate Mytton must be!

The "honest" man with "integrity" has once again shown he is anything but.

[John Mytton]

"...it would have have to be huge and wouldn't be referred to as a bald spot but just bald!"

  maybe he just had the thinnest ring of hair around the bottom of his head or some kind of monk thing going on.
All I can say is 'ask Euins'.
Some people really do tilt their heads when they are taking a shot with a rifle:



Basically, Euins said he could only see the bald spot when the man tilted his head to look down the rifle (I'm paraphrasing)
If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.
You can put words in Euins' mouth or say he's talking sh!t or that he's lying for some reason. That's your choice.
But it does seem consistent with what he's saying about a bald spot and what he's not saying about a receding hairline. That's how I look at it. I'm just taking his testimony at face value.

Thanks Dan, but the man in your photo would be leaning away from Euins.

If he was telling the truth this would mean the shooter was tilting his head to the left. This makes him a left-handed shooter.

To use the scoped Carcano, you have to shoot it right handed and if Oswald wasn't planning to use the scope, he would have left it behind when he dismantled the rifle to fit his 36 inch rifle sack.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

"Oswald said that Norman and Jarman walked "through" the lunch room..."

Just to be accurate, Bookhout said that Oswald said they walked "through" the lunchroom.
Fritz's notes just said they "came in".
Kelley said they all had lunch together.
Oswald's interrogators recall that when he was having his lunch in the domino room he saw Jarman and Norman. That's all we need to know because the testimonies of Jarman and Norman tell us exactly what happened.
Approximately 5 minutes before the assassination occurred, Jarman and Norman entered the Houston Street loading dock door and it was at this time, and at this time only, that Oswald could have seen them from the domino room.
This places Oswald on the first floor about 5 minutes before the shooting.

Rather than deny Oswald ever mentioned it or just disappear when a topic like this comes up (as true Nutters tend to do), you have tried to deal with this thorny issue for the LNer scenario. I don't accept your explanation as I find it very weak and I'll explain why.
You have Oswald basically hanging out of the SN window making himself as obvious to the world as possible only minutes before the motorcade enters Dealey Plaza. I'm not sure why he would purposely do that.
You have his attention focused on the street directly below at the hundreds of people milling about and, for some inexplicable reason, he makes a special note of Norman and Jarman walking around the side of the building. I'm not sure why he would be so preoccupied with the people in the street when he has Bonnie Ray Williams to deal with, not to mention the little matter of an assassination.
He hears movement below and somehow knows it's Norman and Jarman, maybe they've got loud voices, and when he is being questioned he sees the opportunity to place himself elsewhere in the building - when he saw Norman and Jarman walk around the side of the building they must have been heading for the back door and if they entered through there he could say he was sat in the domino room and saw them, this would put him on the first floor minutes before the shooting. Sneaky Oswald.

As weak as this proposed scenario already is, there is a factor that further undermines it.
When Norman and Jarman enter the loading dock door their intention is to take an elevator to the 5th floor, however, when they get in the building they notice the east elevator isn't down on the 1st floor. This forces them to walk around the elevator shaft to take the west elevator and it is this movement that makes them visible to someone in the domino room. If the east elevator was available and they took that it would be impossible for someone in the domino room to see them. It is the movement around the elevator shaft that makes this possible.
The diagram below represents this situation:



Now, you have Oswald making truly miraculous guesses about the movements of Norman and Jarman. Tucked away in the southeast corner of the 6th floor he has to correctly guess the positions of the elevators in the northwest corner and then remember to incorporate it into to his already elaborate guess??
Obviously you are free to believe whatever you want but as a rational person I find your elaborate 'guessing' hypothesis to be incredibly far-fetched.
It seems far more reasonable to assume that Oswald was in the domino room where he said he was and that he actually saw Norman and Jarman as they made their way around the elevator shaft to the west elevator. This was five minutes before the assassination and ten minutes after Rowland had already observed the man on the 6th floor with the rifle.
I have a feeling we will agree to disagree on this.

You have his attention focused on the street directly below at the hundreds of people milling about and, for some inexplicable reason, he makes a special note of Norman and Jarman walking around the side of the building. I'm not sure why he would be so preoccupied with the people in the street when he has Bonnie Ray Williams to deal with, not to mention the little matter of an assassination.

Williams said that "everybody" was talking about going to the sixth floor, so antisocial Oswald who I doubt was part of "everybody" but was probably aware and keeping an eye on who was where would have been a priority.

Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.

Brennan said that Oswald sat sideways on the window sill, obviously to check out what was happening in the crowd below.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.

I can't find any reference to any employee saying that the main floor area was a "room", the first floor plan refers to this area as "Open Storage Space" and the definition of a room is and always will be an enclosed area within a building. This is about as silly as Oswald on TV agreeing that he was inside at the time but CT's claim that outside on the steps was technically inside.

If Oswald did indeed see the two men walk to the elevator and use the elevator then surely he would have said so, because even Oswald would know that the more information he gives makes a better alibi, but simply saying "possibly two negro employees walked through the room" can only mean he guessed since he didn't know if they used the stairs and Oswald based his guess on the limited info he had.

Bookhout: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room of the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two negro employees walking through the room in this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called 'Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall, but whom he would be able to recognize."

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant.

The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich.

And on it goes.

[Dan O'meara]

You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker.
While complaining others misrepresent your position, it seems to be your entire modus operandi. You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA. My "involvement" started as a casual interest, became more of a hobby, and now is little more than an amusing study of the psychology of the conspiracy mindset (across many other subjects besides the JfKA). Who actually killed JFK, at the level of ontology, will simply never be known, but CTers succeed mostly in muddying the water.

I have come to the conviction that Oswald was the shooter on the basis of the totality of the best evidence, most reasonable inferences, and most plausible and rational chain of logic. I am not driven by the psychological needs described in the APA study. I think you and most of your ilk have great difficulty dealing with someone who won't be sucked into your game.

The basis of your statement that "LNers don't believe they speculate"? The WC Report, which I have read in its entirety, is full of acknowledged speculation. My and most peoples' conviction that OJ was guilty as hell nonetheless requires a fair amount of speculation as to precisely what happened. You live in a CT fantasy world where all LNers must fit your preconceived notions. Read the APA material and take a look in the mirror.

Sure, I have my speculation as to what Oswald was doing between 12 and 12:30. It fits nicely with the known evidence, both affirmative and negative. When I try to picture how my scenario might have looked, it makes far more sense and is far more consistent with the evidence than Oswald being in the first floor lunchroom, out on the TSBD steps, hidden in some back room awaiting instructions, or being restrained in a headlock by Shelley as per his instructions from Cason, Byrd and LBJ.

Thank you for illustrating precisely what the APA materials - and reams upon reams of similar studies - are talking about. Nooooo, none of this applies in JFKA Conspiracy World, where everyone is a rational, hardnosed researcher just trying to get at the truth. We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!

You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA

Listen Lance, I've tried to be as civil with you as I can but you're starting to lose it and I need to nip it in the bud.
You believe you're somehow hidden but your rabid Nutter credentials are starting to show.
As for you having "no emotional involvement", your interactions with me are starting to get slightly hysterical, bordering on unhinged:

"You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker."

"We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!"

"The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich."

You seem to imagine you're a free thinker but you're just a "type". I've dealt with the likes of you plenty of times. You come and go.
If you can't be civil don't bother engaging and get your sh!t together, you sound hysterical.
And don't disappear when the going gets a bit tricky, take a leaf out of John Mytton's book and stand by your theory.
And stop misrepresenting what I post, it really is a loser's strategy:

"The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant."

Nowhere have I said it was irrelevant, it was key to framing him.
If you want a psychology to study try that of the rabid Nutter, you have all the relevant material to hand.

[Lance Payette]

You aren't hitting any nerves with me because I have no emotional involvement in the JFKA

Listen Lance, I've tried to be as civil with you as I can but you're starting to lose it and I need to nip it in the bud.
You believe you're somehow hidden but your rabid Nutter credentials are starting to show.
As for you having "no emotional involvement", your interactions with me are starting to get slightly hysterical, bordering on unhinged:

"You're simply underscoring my point for me: Just a theory, just a theory, just a theory. All theories are fungible, all theories are fungible, all theories are fungible. Squawk, squawk, Polly wants a cracker."

"We're not like those UFO or 9/11 wackos. No, we're different! BWAHAHA! Seriously, BWAHAHA!"

"The fact that a 15-year-old kid who couldn't tell whether the gunman was white or black, tall or short, fat or thin, nevertheless thought he had a "white spot" some 2-1/2" into his hair line? Absolute LN theory-killer. PROOF, I tell you, that Oswald was sitting in the lunch room, placidly eating a 28" peanut-butter-and-baloney sandwich."

You seem to imagine you're a free thinker but you're just a "type". I've dealt with the likes of you plenty of times. You come and go.
If you can't be civil don't bother engaging and get your sh!t together, you sound hysterical.
And don't disappear when the going gets a bit tricky, take a leaf out of John Mytton's book and stand by your theory.
And stop misrepresenting what I post, it really is a loser's strategy:

"The fact that Oswald owned the rifle? Irrelevant."

Nowhere have I said it was irrelevant, it was key to framing him.
If you want a psychology to study try that of the rabid Nutter, you have all the relevant material to hand.

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.

I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.

My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.

Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.

[Dan O'meara]

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged." I will leave it to others to assess who appears to fit the American Psychological Association profile of the conspiracy-prone mindset to a T. Not all who accept a JFKA conspiracy theory epitomize the APA profile, of course, but you most emphatically do.

I have no "theory" to "stand by." At this point in life, I am content to amuse myself and watch characters like you underscore my points for me. I don't care about your silly theories. What I find humorous in you and way too many CTers is the bizarre epistemology - the completely topsy-turvy, ass-backwards, upside-down approach to evidence and logic. It's fascinating.

My "rabid Nutter credentials"? Why, thank you. I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct, dull and disappointing as that may be even to me. I think by "your rabid Nutter credentials" what you actually mean is something along the lines of "your irritating propensity to point out that I and my fellow CTers can't think straight, can't articulate a plausible CT narrative, and are more or less making fools of ourselves." Your hysteria, I believe, arises mostly from my refusal to take your nonsense as seriously as you feel it should be taken.

Folks like John are welcome to debate you if they like and find it a worthwhile use of their time. I find it more efficient to genially point out that you make no sense.

I will leave it to others to assess who is "becoming hysterical" and sounding "unhinged."

I wouldn't do that if I were you 

I have no "theory" to "stand by."
"I suppose I do have a fairly strong conviction that the LN perspective is fundamentally correct,"

D'oh!