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

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.

David C wrote:Why do we continue to waste our time on Oswald.

Oswald was accused of the crime of the century.  His name is still in the history books as the accused assassin and the blame for the murder of JFK currently rests very firmly upon his shoulders.

Lee Harvey Oswald is not a waste of time.

I don't believe in a shot from the South Knoll.

All evidence points to the fatal shot being fired from a point fifteen feet or so west of the corner in the picket fence. Witnesses saw smoke and heard a shot from that location and detected the smell of gunpowder nearby.

To a high degree of probability, the acoustics study verified the 'north knoll' as the source of a shot and comparison of the shot sequence with the Zapruder film strongly suggests that this was the 'headshot'.

In contrast, there is not one witness account indicating a shot from the area south-west of Commerce Street.


The LN position must focus almost exclusively on Dealey Plaza and Lee Harvey Oswald.

It is based on the deceit of a bullet trajectory that is demonstrably impossible.

Although it should be the key to finding out what really happened, Oswald's intelligence background is blithely ignored and he is allowed to be condemned by people such as the Paines, who should have been placed under investigation as accomplices, and his wife, who was under tremendous pressure to co-operate. 
 
Belief in the Warren solution is essentially an act of faith.


Numerous TV documentaries in recent years have sought to 'confirm' the SBT and - as they see it - thus prove Oswald's sole guilt.

The LN line is little more than propaganda and I suspect the work of Sean Murphy showing that Oswald was very probably at the TSBD doorway at the time of the shots will not receive much attention in the mainstream media.

Redfern wrote:
Although it should be the key to finding out what really happened, Oswald's intelligence background is blithely ignored and he is allowed to be condemned by people such as the Paines, who should have been placed under investigation as accomplices, and his wife, who was under tremendous pressure to co-operate.

Yes, I would go further and say that "finding out what happened" is not limited to ballistics and medical forensics.  Figuring out who Oswald was and how (and by whom) he was manipulated actually has a greater chance of revealing important info about the planners. The number and direction of the shots don't tell you that.  And I certainly don't trust (and I believe most here would agree with me) latter-day confessions from supposed assassins (this has been going on since the mid-70's with Appointment in Dallas), because even if they were authentic, what are the chances they would have reliable information about the larger aspects of what was undoubtedly a highly compartmentalized operation?

How does trying to find out who Oswald was and who decided he would make an excellent patsy constitute wasting time?

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"

HELLO that is the big lie.

Redfern wrote:
"Numerous TV documentaries in recent years have sought to 'confirm' the SBT and - as they see it - thus prove Oswald's sole guilt."

They have.. and Dale Myers is probably the biggest one with his "modern analysis"  using state of the art computer graphics. Very convincing.. until you slow it down and look at what he is really doing and NOT showing you.

Dale can be clearly shown to have cheated to make it "work". I posted the pictures in another thread.
 
Dale won an Emmy for this. Maybe it should have been for best magician. I don't know how he sleeps.

You have to give credit to Robert Harris for his original video showing Dale's trickery. Robert got this one 100% right.

I think a clear demonstration that the SBT is actually genuinely impossible could be the simple key to reopening the JFK case *.

----
Edit:
* Or Oswald in the doorway which has me 100% on board, that is indeed brilliant.

Either way it has to be something simple that people can get behind.

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

Of course there is. That's what every one of us here believes.

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

You mean like "Oswald didn't do it?"

Lee Farley wrote:

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

You mean like "Oswald didn't do it?"

No.. like "two Oswalds did it".

Edit:
-----
Sorry on reflection I realise it's more complicated than that.

1) Harvey and Lee did it.
2) Harvey did it and Lee didn't.
3) Lee did it and Harvey didn't.
4) Harvey and Lee didn't do it.

Might want to spend a few minutes looking at the data presented in "Enemy of the Truth"


Might want to spend a few minutes looking at http://ctka.net/2013/eot_review.html

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. 

Says who?

No offence, but this claim shows a very limited understanding of terminal ballistics. The truth is that the predictability of a projectile essentially disappears the moment it is discharged. I once heard of a case in which a cadaver was found to have what appeared to be two entrance holes in the forehead, no exit wound, and no bullets. It was eventually established at autopsy that a bullet had entered the forehead and sailed around the circumference of the skull and exited right next to where it had entered! 

Bullets do strange things and, when entering a body, deflection is the norm rather than the exception.

Deflection is very difficult to predict and is dependent on many different factors including the target resistance, the hardness of the round (a softer, hunting round being more prone to deflection), bullet yaw, and the angle of trajectory relative to the target surface. But as Warren Commission Exhibit 844 shows even a full metal jacket round can be deflected by something as soft as ballistic gelatin.

In the JFK case, the presence of a "lead snowstorm" on the skull X-rays is consistent with the use of a soft lead or "frangible" type of bullet which, as I said before, would be more easily deflected. It seems that this bullet struck the skull tangentially and broke apart as it penetrated. As objects in motion always do, it took the path of least resistance so that it was deflected upwards and leftwards, exiting high in the posterior near the midline.

Regardless of what you may have been led to believe, there is no reason to believe that a shot from the knoll would have to cause damage to the left side of Kennedy's head.

Martin Hay said "Regardless of what you may have been led to believe, there is no reason to believe that a shot from the knoll would have to cause damage to the left side of Kennedy's head."


And it also depends upon where on the knoll the shot came from.  That fence is pretty long and let's not forget that in Gary Mack's awful "documentary" Inside the Target Car he and his "sniper" decided to completely bypass exploring a shot from above the large drain at the point furthest west on the fence where it meets the triple overpass.  If Gary Mack wants to overlook something you can bet your last dollar it's something we should be looking at.

Sherry Fister presented analysis on the shot from the grassy knoll fence.

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.

If fact, if we had went to trial, the key evidence, the presidents body, would have been thrown out as evidence, since it was stolen from the crime scene.

Alan, which statement was a lie.

I walked the ground around that sewer down in the corner where the tunnel structure meets the fence. It would be a great place to shot from. There are photos that clearly show that the fence on 11/22/63 did not have any gaps in the fence to stick your rifle barrel through. If you stood up, you would be exposed. Cant say it couldnt happen.

Back splatter evidence strongly points to a shot from the front.

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