JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Pcdunn]

I'm watching an episode from Oct. 10, 2021 of "The Osbournes Want to Believe" and have discovered that the JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists have some celebrity belivers.

In response to the viewer question read by a producer: "Do you believe the JFK assassination was a single shooter or more complicated?"-- both Ozzy Osbourne and his son Jack answered "it's complicated." Jack expressed doubt that a moving target could be hit with the rifle Oswald had.

So there we have it.

[Fiver]

It certainly is not!

You can see here a woman wearing a white garment while holding the jacket in question and it appears to be grey, not white:

Here's a video of the jacket that Marina Oswald identified as belonging to he husband,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdfe-X5ngs

It looks light gray when near the very white garment the woman is wearing.

It looks light tan when near the gray tabletop.

It could easily look white in different lighting or when near darker colors.

This is called the contrast effect.

Here's an example.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg

Squares A and B are the same shade of gray.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Here's a video of the jacket that Marina Oswald identified as belonging to he husband,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdfe-X5ngs

It looks light gray when near the very white garment the woman is wearing.

It looks light tan when near the gray tabletop.

It could easily look white in different lighting or when near darker colors.

This is called the contrast effect.

Here's an example.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg

Squares A and B are the same shade of gray.

You have uploaded the same recording that I uploaded here previously!

The jacket is obviously grey and I cannot see how it could be described as tan.

This is the jacket allegedly worn by the murderer who, according to some witnesses, wore a dark jacket and also, according to some witnesses, wore a sport jacket.

According to Barbara Jeanette Davis, the murderer wore a dark sport jacket.

Does that seem like the discarded jacket?

[Fiver]

If you look at all the evidence of Tippit's movements and actions that day, the account given by Andrews is plausible.

Tippit was obviously looking for something or someone.

In 1997 Bill Drenas claimed that Bill Putle claimed that Greg Lowrey claimed that James A Andrews claimed that his car was stopped by Tippet shortly after 1 PM.

That's so tenuous a connection it doesn't even count as hearsay. It isn't enough to prove James A Andrews existed, let alone ever met Tippet. So it might have happened, but we don't know that Tippet stopped Andrews at 1:03. Even if he did, we don't know how accurate Andrews memory was, let alone how accurately his statements passed from Andrews to Lowrey to Pulte to Drenas.

There's no indication that Tippet was looking for anyone before he stopped the man who murdered him.

[Fiver]

In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Roy Kellerman related that he turned round and saw Kennedy holding both hands up to his throat.

He then turned round, facing the front, and said to the driver, Let’s get out of here; we are hit, grabbed the mike and said, Lawson, this is Kellerman. We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately.

Now, in the seconds [which he estimated as 4-5 seconds] that I talked just now, a flurry of shells [Kellerman's alternative name for what he called a double bang] come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our follow-up car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into the back seat.

But anyone viewing the Zapruder film can see that what happened was very different.

Kellerman does not come fully into view for a while after Kennedy has been shot, but when he does he is looking at Kennedy almost the whole time until just after Kennedy's head explodes.

He claimed that he was on the radio, facing forwards when he heard the double shot, but the film shows him watching Kennedy.

Even more damningly, at a time which, according to Kellerman, was after he had told Greer, Let’s get out of here; we are hit, both he and Greer can be seen looking back at Kennedy.

The only conclusion is that, contrary to Kellerman's claim that he and Greer were doing everything they could to get Kennedy to safety, they were in fact waiting for him to be fatally wounded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

The Zaparuder film proves you wrong.

* Kellerman is fully in view, facing forward, at the time JFK is shot in the throat.
* Kellerman starts to turn his head to the left to look back around Frame 257.
* Though his head is partially obscured, Kellerman starts to turn his head to the front around Frame 297,
* Also at Frame 297, Greer is facing forward.
* Greer is clearly facing forward at Frame 308.
* As Kellerman come back into view, it is clear that he is facing forward in Frame 310.
* JFK was shot in the head at Frame 313.

[Fiver]

When I cited a description given by a witness to the Tippit shooting which included black wavy hair, you corrected me and insisted that it did not include the word wavy.

As you can see, the Warren Commission did include it.

Oswald did not fit that description either: he was not 5 ft 11 ins tall,, did not weigh 165 lbs and did not have black wavy hair.

You claimed that the initial description of Tippit's killer said they had wavy hair. It didn't.

"He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." - RW Walker (Call sign 85)

The later report is "That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt." - HW Summers (Call sign 221).

I don't know who this "eyeball witness" was.

But we do know that.
Helen Markham picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides told police wasn't sure if he could ID Tippet's killer.
Johnny C. Brewer identified Oswald at the theater.
Ted Callaway picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Barbara J. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia R. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Sam Guinyard picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Warren Reynolds identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph. (Oswald was dead by the time police contacted him.)
William W. Scoggins picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
William Arthur Smith identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph.

Tippit was killed with bullets from Oswald's pistol.
The discarded cartridges came from Oswald's pistol.
Oswald was carrying his pistol when arrested.
Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers with his pistol.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The Zaparuder film proves you wrong.

* As Kellerman come back into view, it is clear that he is facing forward in Frame 310.

* JFK was shot in the head at Frame 313.

The Zapruder film proves me right and you wrong!

It is clear that Kellerman is looking back at Kennedy continuously from frames 303 to 317, which means he was looking at Kennedy when his head exploded, as I have repeatedly stated.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You claimed that the initial description of Tippit's killer said they had wavy hair. It didn't.

"He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." - RW Walker (Call sign 85)

The later report is "That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt." - HW Summers (Call sign 221).

I don't know who this "eyeball witness" was.

But we do know that.
Helen Markham picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Domingo Benavides told police wasn't sure if he could ID Tippet's killer.
Johnny C. Brewer identified Oswald at the theater.
Ted Callaway picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Barbara J. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia R. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Sam Guinyard picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Warren Reynolds identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph. (Oswald was dead by the time police contacted him.)
William W. Scoggins picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
William Arthur Smith identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph.

Tippit was killed with bullets from Oswald's pistol.
The discarded cartridges came from Oswald's pistol.
Oswald was carrying his pistol when arrested.
Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers with his pistol.

Two witnesses, Helen Markham and Barbara Jeanette Davis, testified that the jacket worn by the murderer was noticeably darker than the one allegedly discarded by Oswald, and that the murderer wore a lighter shirt than Oswald's.

Mrs Markham told Mark Lane that the killer was short and had slightly bushy hair.

Acquilla Clemons described the murderer as short with bushy hair.

Patrolman Roy W. Walker radioed a description of the killer which included his having wavy hair.

Domingo Benavides said the assassin had curly hair, which needed cutting, and a ruddy complexion.

William Smith testified that the murderer had dark hair.

Barbara Jeanette Davis and William Smith testified that the killer wore a sport jacket.


FOUR WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE JACKET ALLEGEDLY WORN BY OSWALD WAS NOT WORN BY THE MURDERER AND A FIFTH WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT OSWALD NEVER WORE IT

(my # 2305)

[Fiver]

As far as I can see, Fiver has not explained how a description of Tippit's killer which is of someone at least two inches taller than Oswald, 34 lbs heavier than Oswald, and with wavy hair, which Oswald did not have, can be Oswald.

You not listening does not mean I didn't provide an explanation.

Oswald's height was recorded as 5 ft 8 ins in the Marines, but just under 5 ft 9 ins - with a scale showing his height in a mugshot - in August 1963.

His weight, according to his arrest record in November 1963, was 131 lbs.

That makes no sense. Oswald was 5'8" and 135 lbs when he joined the Marines. People don't lose 5 pounds of weight from gaining an inch in height. Slender people don't lose weight serving in the Marines. Slender people don't lose weight pulling and packing orders in a Book Depository.

I would like to know how you would present such eyewitness evidence to a jury - that a man who was two inches taller than Oswald, 34 lbs heavier, and had wavy hair was obviously Oswald.

I don't even know who this witness was.

What I would present to the jury is.

Helen Markham picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Johnny C. Brewer identified Oswald at the theater.
Ted Callaway picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Barbara J. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia R. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Sam Guinyard picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Warren Reynolds identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph. (Oswald was dead by the time police contacted him.)
William W. Scoggins picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
William Arthur Smith identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph.

The bullets in Tippet's body came from Oswald's pistol.
The discarded cartridges came from Oswald's pistol.
Oswald had his pistol when he was arrested.
Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers.

Would you call Marrion Baker and suggest to the jury that any reasonable witness should be expected to make the same mistakes as Baker made and in addition make mistakes about his hair?

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information." - Police dispatcher.

"He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." - Officer Walker.

All three descriptions estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments in a highly stressful situation.

I'd also use Baker and Truly's testimony to show how bizarre Oswald's reaction to having a police officer point a gun at him and being told the President had just been assassinated.

Markham said the killer's hair was slightly bushy, Clemons said it was bushy, Benavides said it was curly, and another witness, according to the Warren Commission, said it was wavy.

Markham did not say that the killer had bushy hair. I have already shown that.
Clemons did not say that the killer had bushy hair. I have already shown that.
Benavides said he could not ID the killer. He said their was "little bit curlier' than the hair of lawyer David Belin.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You not listening does not mean I didn't provide an explanation.



That makes no sense. Oswald was 5'8" and 135 lbs when he joined the Marines. People don't lose 5 pounds of weight from gaining an inch in height. Slender people don't lose weight serving in the Marines. Slender people don't lose weight pulling and packing orders in a Book Depository.



I don't even know who this witness was.

What I would present to the jury is.

Helen Markham picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Johnny C. Brewer identified Oswald at the theater.
Ted Callaway picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Barbara J. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Virginia R. Davis picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Sam Guinyard picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
Warren Reynolds identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph. (Oswald was dead by the time police contacted him.)
William W. Scoggins picked Lee Harvey Oswald out of a lineup.
William Arthur Smith identified Lee Harvey Oswald from a photograph.

The bullets in Tippet's body came from Oswald's pistol.
The discarded cartridges came from Oswald's pistol.
Oswald had his pistol when he was arrested.
Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers.



"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

"White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information." - Police dispatcher.

"He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." - Officer Walker.

All three descriptions estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments in a highly stressful situation.

I'd also use Baker and Truly's testimony to show how bizarre Oswald's reaction to having a police officer point a gun at him and being told the President had just been assassinated.



Markham did not say that the killer had bushy hair. I have already shown that.
Clemons did not say that the killer had bushy hair. I have already shown that.
Benavides said he could not ID the killer. He said their was "little bit curlier' than the hair of lawyer David Belin.

Markham did say that the murderer had slightly bushy hair, which Oswald evidently did not.

I did quote from the relevant Warren Commission volume as proof of that.

Clemons did say that the killer had bushy hair.

I provided a link to the interview in which she said that.

Benavides did say that the murderer had curly hair and that he needed a haircut, neither of which statements could be made about Oswald.

It is impossible for hair that is not already curly to be curlier than someone else's hair and Oswald's hair was obviously not curly.

Oswald did not have curlier hair, slightly bushy hair, nor bushy hair.

It is quite clear that all three witnesses were describing someone else.

[Fiver]

Williams testified that he ate his lunch on the sixth floor, possibly as late as 12.15 p.m.

He didn't see Oswald.

The domino room was a small room. There was nowhere in the room to be unseen.

Jarman testified that he ate his lunch while walking around on the first floor, not in the domino room.
Norman ate his lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Troy West said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Danny Acre said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Jack Dougherty said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
And Oswald claimed he had been alone, somehow failing to see West, Acre, and Dougherty.

The east half of the 6th floor was full of stacks of boxes ranging from mid-chest high to taller than most men. Unless Williams had X-ray vision, it would have been easy for someone in that area to be unseen by Williams.

Here's where Williams ate lunch.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0114b.htm

We have the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses that there was someone in the sniper's nest shooting at JFK. If it was someone besides Oswald, they didn't just have to be undetected by Williams when he was on the 6th floor, they also had to enter the Book Depository, go to the 6th floor, and leave after the assassination without being seen by anyone inside the building.

[Fiver]

On the other hand, for Oswald alone to have been firing the shots requires one to believe that, after missing the vehicle altogether, and with the vehicle then further away, and with a defective scope, he was then able to defy the laws of both mathematics and anatomy by shooting Kennedy in the back about six inches below the neckline, at a downward angle, shooting Kennedy in the front of the neck, and shooting Connally - all with one bullet - and then hitting Kennedy twice in the head, also with one bullet.

How many people here actually believe that?

That's your nonsensical misrepresentation of the lone gunman theory - a strawman that no one believes.

* The first shot was at the steepest downward angle and thus the easiest to misjudge.
* The optical sight wasn't defective.
* Oswald's shooting records in the Marines showed he was capable of making shots at longer distances than JFK was without using a scope.
* Autopsy evidence shows JFK was not shot 6" below the neckline.
* Modern computer modelling of the actual positions and forensics testing with Carcanos show it was possible for a single bullet to hit JFK's upper back, exit his throat, and strike Connally inflicting the wounds he took.
* Photographic evidence and x-rays show Kennedy was shot once in the head from the back.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses that there was someone in the sniper's nest shooting at JFK. If it was someone besides Oswald, they didn't just have to be undetected by Williams when he was on the 6th floor, they also had to enter the Book Depository, go to the 6th floor, and leave after the assassination without being seen by anyone inside the building.

I could tell the gun was rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting.

(Amos Euins' affidavit, 22 November 1963)


Oswald's rifle was not an automatic rifle.


Howard Brennan estimated the shooter's weight as 165-175 pounds.

According to Oswald's arrest record, he weighed 131 lbs.

He said he wore light-coloured clothing, but Oswald wore a brown shirt which contained black fibres.

He said the man fired a high-powered rifle.

The Mannlicher-Carcano was not, as far as I can make out, high-anything.


In his testimony, James Worrell was unable to describe the man he said he saw shooting, but he described the clothing of the man he saw running away.

He said he wore a dark sports jacket and light coloured trousers.

Oswald wore neither that day.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below,

That's your nonsensical misrepresentation of the lone gunman theory - a strawman that no one believes.

I think my arguments have merit and if no-one agreed with me then I would not receive any upvotes or commendations.


* The first shot was at the steepest downward angle and thus the easiest to misjudge.

No-one can say why the first shot missed.


* The optical sight wasn't defective.

IT WAS.

It had to be rebuilt!


* Oswald's shooting records in the Marines showed he was capable of making shots at longer distances than JFK was without using a scope.

His record does not show that he was capable of shooting through someone's cervical vertebrae and two people - all with one bullet.


* Autopsy evidence shows JFK was not shot 6" below the neckline.

Eyewitness testimony, both shortly after the assassination and during the autopsy, the autopsy diagrams, the FBI report on the holes in both Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and Kennedy's official death certificate, all place the wound in Kennedy's back at roughly six inches below the neckline.

That evidence is conclusive.


* Modern computer modelling of the actual positions and forensics testing with Carcanos show it was possible for a single bullet to hit JFK's upper back, exit his throat, and strike Connally inflicting the wounds he took.

That is not true.

A bullet entering Kennedy's back at a downward angle could not have exited his throat, let alone hit Connally in the back.


* Photographic evidence and x-rays show Kennedy was shot once in the head from the back.

Some of the photographic evidence is fake.

I have lost count of the number of witnesses who have said that there was a huge hole in the back right of Kennedy's head - including Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who testified also that he saw a big piece of the missing part of the skull in the back of the limousine, and about a dozen doctors at Parkland Hospital.

Photographs or drawings showing the right back of Kennedy's head intact have obviously been faked.

Two experts found fragments from two separate bullets in Kennedy's skull x-rays.

[Fiver]

Because he knew JFK's intentions.

That is not an answer.

Why would Hoover assume he couldn't get an exemption of mandatory retirement from JFK? For that matter, why would Hoover even care - he wouldn't need to worry about mandatory retirement until 1965, by which point JFK might not be President.

Because that was the deal they struck.

So people who plot murder and treason can be completely trusted to keep their promises?

Feel free to provide any evidence that LBJ and Hoover plotted to assassinate JFK.

The same way he knew JFK could not fire him.

That's not an answer.

How could Hoover guarantee LBJ wouldn't revoke the exemption or just fire him? Or charge Hoover with JFK's murder, claiming he only found out after the fact? Or just have Hoover murdered to eliminate loose ends and avoid possible blackmail.

Or having gotten the exemption he didn't need yet, why wouldn't Hoover murder LBJ to reduce risk of expose?

He couldn't; but he could guarantee that JFK would not extend his tenure.

It didn't matter whether JFK gave Hoover an exemption from mandatory retirement - Hoover didn't face mandatory retirement until 1965.

Who would risk execution for murder and treason, the destruction of the legacy of a lifetime, and future plans, and the demolishing of the organization that they spent a lifetime building just to get one more year of guaranteed employment which they already had anyway.

Because no such risk existed.

The new President and the heads of the FBI and CIA were all in on the conspiracy, as must have been the head of the Secret Service.

The conspiracy could hardly fail.

Please, please tell me you're joking.

Why would Hoover assume exemption from retirement, which could be revoked in a year, would be worth the risk of being executed for murder and treason, having his legacy and intended accomplishments destroyed, and the agency he had led for most of his adult life abolished?

Why would LBJ assume one year of being President was worth being blackmailed for the rest of his life in the best case, or more likely being executed for murder and treason, having his legacy and intended accomplishments destroyed?

John McCone was the head of the CIA. He had been appointed by JFK. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in a plot to kill JFK. He had everything to gain by revealing the plot to murder JFK. And he resigned from the CIA in 1965 - an act of absolute madness for anyone who needed to keep a murder plot secret.

John Rowley was the head of the Secret Service. He had been appointed by JFK. A successful assassination would make the Secret Service look incompetent and that's the best case for Rowley. Getting caught would guarantee execution for murder and treason. OTOH, revealing the plot would have been a massive win for Rowley - he'd guarantee his future and become the hero of the entire nation.

No sane person would have tried to make John Rowley or any other member of the Secret Service part of a conspiracy to kill JFK. Even an insane person, assuming he had more intelligence than a gerbil, would never have tried to make Rowley part of the plot.

And members of LBJ's staff, the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service were not mindless robots. A Conspiracy would require mindless devotion from dozens of people, any of whom could destroy everyone else by revealing the truth. None of these dozens of Conspirators could sleep soundly again until they knew every single other member of the Conspiracy was dead.

They had a much better idea than Oswald as to what was likely to happen.

Don't tell me Oswald knew as much as LBJ about plans for Kennedy's schedule, whether it would include Dallas, what the likely route would be, and how the route could be changed so as to facilitate an assassination.

That's not an answer.

How could the Conspiracy frame Oswald when they didn't even know what cities JFK was going to, let alone the parade routes?

Connally testified that LBJ wasn't part of the planning and was annoyed at not being in the loop. LBJ only found out the cities and the itineraries after other people decided them. A Conspiracy would have had one more day to plan than Oswald had.

I would say that would have been difficult as well as unnecessary.

So you believe that the same Conspiracy that could forge documents, handwriting, print evidence, ballistics evidence, x-rays, autopsy reports, photographic evidence, and get dozens of people to support the lie couldn't do anything to remove the evidence that he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico?

That makes no sense.

Common sense tells you that having multiple shooters firing from different directions offered the best chance of success.

Lets look at the Conspirators plan.
1) Kill JFK
2) Don't get caught
3) Profit!

The best way to make sure that JFK dies is to make sure that the best possible shooter with the best possible weapon is used, not a pack of bumblers that can't even hit the correct target over half the time.

Adding more shooters, assuming they are competent, increases the chance killing the target, but decreases the chance of not getting caught as it adds more people who could betray the Conspiracy or get caught.

The best way to not get caught is to use a number of shooters that matches your cover story. That way you don't have to fake eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, autopsy records, x-rays, print evidence, and ballistics evidence, which would add dozens more people who might betray the Conspiracy.

It seems as though you are arguing that evidence of mistakes made by the conspirators is to be treated as evidence that there was no conspiracy.

Of course they made mistakes, just as so many criminal enterprises do.

Killing JFK would risk execution for everyone involved. They couldn't afford to make any mistakes.

Yet for there to be a Conspiracy, they have to have made a series of massive self-inflicted blunders that make the bumbling amateurs that killed Franz Ferdinand look like a professional hit squad.

Shooting Connally was just one mistake and that is one of the reasons the Warren Commission lawyers had to come up with the SBT - a piece of practically-criminal invention to complement the original crime.

A shooter hitting the wrong target is a minor error, but zero risk to the Conspiracy as a whole.

Have a second shooter is a massive self-imposed blunder if the Conspiracy is trying to pin the crime on an individual. It means the Conspiracy has to fake eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, autopsy records, x-rays, print evidence, and ballistics evidence, which would add dozens more people who might betray the Conspiracy.