Why after 49 years of research are we still talking about Oswald

First topic message reminder :

Oswald was not standing in JFK's front.

The head shot came from the front (South Knoll) ie, blood splatter, radial fracturing, fragment trail, etc.

Why do we continue to waste our time on Oswald.

To belabor the obvious, once again:

1.  No-one here believes Oswald fired any shots that day.
2.  Fiester's arguments are not without their problems.  I suggest (at least) reading Dr. Mantik's review.
3.  Martin raises some very interesting points which are well worth considering.
4.  Disagreement with Fiester does not mean one doesn't think Kennedy was hit from in front.
5.  Concluding Oswald was not (one of) the assassin(s) demolishes the official lie, but it is not sufficient to solve the crime.  A fuller understanding of his whereabouts, his contacts, etc., is crucial.

Don't know what more to say.

David C wrote:If the head shot came from the grassy knoll fence, it would have travelled through the head and into the left side, the left side which shows no injury.

Might want to spend a few minutes looking at the data presented in "Enemy of the Truth"
 
I would not consider "the history book" as a good source of information on anything, especially the JFK assassination. Who writes the history books.

Oswald was accussed by who,the Warren Commission, who was controlled by who. Same with HSCA, Why was Sprague replaced.

Does the history books say anything about the Nov 2, 1963 attempt in Chicago to assassinate Kennedy.

Where is the evidence that Oswald pulled the trigger.

Who  can put a rifle in his hands standing anywhere on 11/22/63.

There is a heck of alot more going on in the JFK assassination than "Oswald did it"

Sherry's analysis cannot account for the Harper fragment.

Has it ever been shown that there was a clear shot from the South Knoll at Z312?


The massive damage caused to Kennedy's head surely suggests that conventional ammunition was not responsible.

David C wrote:

Until someone can put the rifle in Oswalds hands on 11/22/63, turn a negative nitrate test into to a positive, then I will continue to believe Oswald did not do it. Lets remember, Oswald was never convicted of anything.

Whilst I share your belief that Oswald didn't do it, the negative cheek cast cannot be held up as proof of this fact. As Don Thomas reported in his book, Hear No Evil, studies have shown that gunshot residues can fall off the body within hours and Oswald's cast wasn't prepared until around 8 hours after the assassination. The sad truth is that no real significance can be attached to either the cheek or hand casts because of the time interval and the non-specific nature of the test.

The probable reason they got a positive result from the hand casts is because of the incompetence of the Dallas police. The test they used on Oswald was intended to reveal a reaction with the nitrate residues from gunpowder which would appear as streaming blue flecks on the paraffin cast. The problem was that the test was non-specific and the nitrogenous residues in a myriad other things like urine, soap, or tobacco would produce the exact same blue flecks. Another item that would produce a positive result was ink and guess what they did to Oswald before they made the paraffin casts? Well, according to the duty report by detectives Sims and Boyd, "At 8:55 pm...Det. Hicks started fingerprinting Oswald...After Hicks finished fingerprinting Oswald, he and Barnes made paraffin casts of both hands and also the right side of his face." That's right: they fingerprinted him first. And ink is a source of barium and antimony.

In any case, like I said, a negative cheek cast is to be expected whether Oswald had fired a rifle or not because of the time interval.

Why after 49 years of research are we still talking about Oswald

Because:
1. There still is, although very small, probability he did it and all the strange things are just coincidences. The reality sometimes is unrealistic.
2. Even if he wasn't in the `sniper's nest`, nor fired shots in the President, there still were lot of strange happenings around him - murders of Tippit and Oswald. He certainly IS at least one of keys to the truth what really happened.

Redfern wrote:

David C wrote:If the head shot came from the grassy knoll fence, it would have travelled through the head and into the left side, the left side which shows no injury.

Might want to spend a few minutes looking at the data presented in "Enemy of the Truth"
 
I would not consider "the history book" as a good source of information on anything, especially the JFK assassination. Who writes the history books.

Oswald was accussed by who,the Warren Commission, who was controlled by who. Same with HSCA, Why was Sprague replaced.

Does the history books say anything about the Nov 2, 1963 attempt in Chicago to assassinate Kennedy.

Where is the evidence that Oswald pulled the trigger.

Who  can put a rifle in his hands standing anywhere on 11/22/63.

There is a heck of alot more going on in the JFK assassination than "Oswald did it"

Sherry's analysis cannot account for the Harper fragment.

Has it ever been shown that there was a clear shot from the South Knoll at Z312?


The massive damage caused to Kennedy's head surely suggests that conventional ammunition was not responsible.

Redfern, have you talked with Sherry about this question, I brought it up over on JFK essentials and she anwered the Harper question in detail.

David