Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald

[Bolo Boffin]

This will be a summary of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, as compiled by Vincent Bugliosi in his book Reclaiming History.

No doubt a few of these will be dismissed as lightweight stuff by conspiracy theorists. It is the totality of the evidence we are looking at here, though. It's the way they work together to demonstrate Oswald's guilt. His actions before, during, and after the assassination, his possession of the two murder weapons, his many lies to others, all of it shows his guilt. Most importantly, all of it is from his own volition. No one made Oswald go back to Irving on a day completely outside his habit. No one made Oswald have his cab driver drive past his house. No one forced Oswald to shoot Officer Tippit. This is him: what he did.

And so, the evidence demonstrating the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Note: I'll make a post for each one under this OP. I won't finish them all today! But they will be finished by November.)

[BootinUp]

1. Great idea. Don't have the book

or I would help.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. (1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

At this point in their relationship, Lee and Marina were living in separate places. Lee had a room in a boarding house on North Beckley in South Dallas, close to his job at the Texas School Book Depository. Marina was living with a Ruth Paine along with their children. Oswald would catch a ride back to Irving with a co-worker, Wesley Frazier.

He would always catch this ride on a Friday, stay the weekend, and then catch a ride back on Monday with Wesley again. This is something he never deviated from until Thursday, November 21, the day before JFK's visit to Dallas.

[zappaman]

3. You omitted the part where he left all his money

AND his wedding ring on her dresser.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. That's coming. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

4. (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Frazier asked why Oswald was going back to Irving, and Oswald told him it was to pick up some curtain rods.

As you can see from this photograph taken from LIFE photographer Allen Grant on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, Oswald's room already had curtain rods and curtains.



That's Erlene Roberts, Oswald's landlady, in the picture. She testified that Oswald never discussed getting curtain rods with her.

Ruth Paine did have two sets of curtain rods in her Irving home garage. Both were there after Oswald left.

Marina testified that Lee never said anything about getting curtain rods to her.

No curtain rods were found at the depository. After the assassination, Oswald first boarded a bus. Witnesses on that bus say he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods. After this, Oswald took a cab to his house. The cab driver testified he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods. When Oswald entered the house, Earlene Roberts was there in the front room. She testified he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods.

Bugliosi finally points out the implausibility of Oswald's curtain rod story. What made these curtain rods so incredibly important that Oswald had to get them on a Thursday evening? He would be in Irving the next day, by his long-standing, unbroken custom. Why Thursday and not Friday?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. (3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

This was said on Thursday evening right after Frazier had asked Oswald why he was going back to Irving on a Thursday. Oswald told him the curtain rod story, and Frazier then asked if he'd be coming out to Irving again on Friday night. Oswald said no.

Again, this goes to changing a habitual pattern of activity, but it is also before any discussion with Marina about their relationship. Oswald knew something would prevent him from coming back on Friday night.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. (4) That night Oswald avoided Kennedy talk with Marina, a subject it was their custom to discuss.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Both Lee and Marina were interested in the President and his family and would talk of them often. Yet that Thursday night, when Marina brought up the subject of JFK's Dallas visit the next day, Lee avoided the subject.

Her testimony: "He just ignored a little bit, you know, to talk about [it]...maybe changed the subject about talking about...newborn baby or something like that...It was quite peculiar that he did not want to talk aobut President Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar."

[zappaman]

8. Kick! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

9. (5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Before leaving Ruth Paine's house, Oswald emptied his pockets of most of his money, $170, and also left his wedding ring. He also told Marina to use the money for the kids, new shoes for the baby, whatever she felt was necessary.

This was an incredible breach of habit for Oswald. Many of the couple's arguments were over money, and Lee hardly let Marina spend any money at all. And yet he leaves almost a thousand dollars in today's money for her? Has anyone besides me been in a relationship with a skinflint? That just doesn't happen without a strong reason why.

[frogmarch]

10. Thanks for this thread!

Keep the posts comin'!

[Bolo Boffin]

11. (6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car.

When Frazier asked Oswald what this was, Oswald told him it was curtain rods.

This fact is part of the circumstantial evidence of Oswald's possession of the murder weapon that morning, a different legal concept than ownership.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. (7) Frazier noticed that for the first time on a return trip from Irving, Oswald brought no lunch.

This is another break in Oswald's pattern of behavior on Friday. This also falsifies a later story by Oswald as to what he was doing during the assassination.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. (8) On arrival at the TSBD, Oswald walked faster and ahead of Frazier for the first time ever.

Another break with Oswald's pattern of behavior. Frazier and Oswald had always walked together for the 300 yards from where Frazier parked to the TSBD. That Friday morning, Oswald got his paper-wrapped package and walked ahead of Frazier, to the point that he was 50 feet ahead of Frazier when he reached the depository.

This also points to possession of the murder weapon, as later facts will show.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.

Another deviation from his normal pattern of behavior, and this one is rather striking for someone we would call a news junkie today. Every work day as he got to work, Oswald would go to the first floor domino room and read the previous morning's paper left by another employee the day before. Not this Friday.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

61. Man.....

....I hope nobody notices that I've changed everything in my daily routine. Don't want to call attention to myself the day I shoot the Prez 'cause I hope to get away.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Not just daily routine. The trip to Irving was a weekly thing. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

15. (10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

As mentioned before, Oswald always read the morning paper from the day before. He also read the afternoon paper. As Marina testified, the two of them always discussed the President and his family, and Oswald's life was defined by his political actions and statements.

Yet despite the immense amount of coverage the President's visit had found in the Dallas press, the following conversation was reported by a co-worker of Oswald's, James Jarman.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jarman.html

The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes.

This was the motorcade route published in the Dallas Times Herald on Thursday afternoon.



However, Oswald may not have seen this map, since he uncharacteristically left for the Paines that Thursday after work.

Another map was published in the Dallas Morning News on Friday morning that omitted the turn onto Elm, but Oswald would not have seen that map until Monday morning anyway.

But both Dallas papers described the routes accurately in their Tuesday edtions, including the turn onto Elm that would take the motorcade in front of the Texas School Book Depository, both of which Oswald would have read. This is a copy from the Dallas Morning News that Oswald would have read Wednesday morning:



This is one of the few places I disagree with what Bugliosi concludes. He sees this as evidence Oswald was trying to establish no knowledge of the President's visit whatsoever. I see it as a half-assed attempt at establishing ignorance of the route for purposes of evasion later if he were captured.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. (11) Howard Brennan saw Lee Harvey Oswald fire the third shot that killed the President.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm

Brennan was sitting directly across the street from the TSBD. He was just over 90 feet from the building, and 120 feet from the sixth-floor window.

He had seen Oswald in the sixth-floor window before the motorcade passed. He heard the first shot, thinking it was a motorcycle backfire, and then perhaps firecrackers being thrown at the TSBD. When he looked back, he saw Oswald taking aim out of the sixth-floor window. Oswald made the final shot and stood back.

When Brennan saw most of the policemen were searching on the west side of the building and down Houston, he found an policeman and told him what he'd seen and that they were looking in the wrong place. He is the most likely source of the description that Dallas police gave out.

Later in a lineup, he would not identify Oswald as the man he'd seen in the sixth floor window without reservations. The reasons he gave later for this:

a. He felt the assassination was part of a Communist plot. He'd realized he was the only eyewitness by then and felt any public knowledge of his being a witness would be a danger to himself and his family.

b. He'd also seen Oswald's photograph on the television twice before the lineup and didn't know if that would cloud his judgment.

c. He also knew the Dallas police were holding Oswald for the murder of Officer Tippit as well, and so he knew Oswald would not be released if he pulled his punch.

After Ruby killed Oswald, Brennan's fear for himself and his family relaxed and he then testified under oath that Oswald was the man he'd seen, that he could have identified him without reservation at at the lineup, and it was only for those reasons above that he did not.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

60. Funny....

....three eyewitnesses said the shooter had a beige shirt but Lee had on a dark shirt that day at lunchtime. Guess he went to the cleaners after he shot JFK.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. What you've said here doesn't negate the fact that Brennan saw Oswald take the third shot. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. This is a weak point

Mind you, I agree that Oswald did the shooting and acted alone. That said, if the dude couldn't do the line-up ID, then it's not an ID. The post hoc nature of his certainty makes it dubious.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Yes, that he wouldn't do the positive ID right then weakens this point.

But he did testify under oath that it was Oswald later.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. Right, bbut you and I would both probably discount any such testimony in a live criminal case

And we'd be right to.

Imagine, for instance, a witness in a robbery. The witness cannot ID a suspect in a line-up. Later, the witness testifies that, yes, it was that suspect after all, and he had all sorts of odd reasons for not IDing that suspect in the actual line-up.

Now imagine that was the only real "evidence." No way you'd convict on that. It would be wrong to do so. We have controlled line-ups for a reason, even though we now know that much eyewitness testimony is doubtful anyway.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. (12) Kennedy's assassin was at the now-infamous sixth-floor window.

Bugliosi lists this evidence:

a. The murder weapon was found on the sixth floor.

b. Other witnesses saw a rifle sticking out of the window in question during the assassination.

c. The "sniper's nest" was discovered at this window - an arrangement of boxes to help facilitate the firing of a rifle at a target.

d. "Three cartridge casings fired from the murder weapon were found on the floor beneath the window."

[Bolo Boffin]

18. (13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.

From the notes of Oswald's Sunday interrogation, made by H.D. Holmes:

When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes." Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily.

The employee to whom Oswald was speaking was Charles Givens.

Bugliosi also includes information about the two soda machines in the TSBD, the Coke machine on the second floor which contained only Cokes and the Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor that contained a variety of drinks. It's an interesting read, and the gist of what he presents is this: Oswald was a Dr. Pepper drinker, something Marina and Frazier both said. Frazier could not ever remember Oswald getting a Coke from the second floor before, but like almost everyone else in the TSBD, Oswald got his soda from the first floor machine, a Dr. Pepper. The first floor was where the workers ate their lunch (that was where Oswald said he was eating his lunch that day) and the first floor soda machine was more convenient and had more choices.

So we see that apart from all the conclusive evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and therefore had to have descended from there to the second floor, his story about going up to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft drink machine on the first floor, the floor you say you are already on, particularly when the apparent drink of your choice is on this first floor, not the second floor?

The point being: Oswald told two stories about his whereabouts. One of them makes no sense, based on his previous habits of behavior. The other meshes completely with the eyewitness testimony of someone else and places him (by his own admission) on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. Which is more likely to be the truth here?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. (14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.

This is Bugliosi's weakest point to me. People do weird things all the time. But it is a highly unusual choice to an innocent person to go get a Coke after having heard the commotion of the assassination outside, rather than investigate the cause of the noise while on a break.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. (15) It makes no sense that Oswald the "political animal" had no interest in the President's death.

However, this is one of Bugliosi's strongest points, since whatever you think happened that day, this is something we can all agree on. Whether you think Oswald did the deed and ran or you think Oswald thought he was being framed and ran, it's utter nonsense that Oswald nonchalantly wandered off to go catch a movie after the President was shot. Yet this was his own story for his actions after the assassination. Everyone can agree Oswald was lying to the police here.

And that, in turn, strengthens number 14. The idea that Oswald just ho-hummed up to the second floor to score a Coke after hearing the commotion of the assassination is just as nonsensical. By all accounts, he knew the President was passing by around this time. That something horrible had happened is beyond doubt. Within minutes, Oswald would be fleeing the TSBD for whatever reason you believe - escaping his crime or being framed for it. It beggars belief that he had so little interest in this event that he would just leave, and that same implausibility transfers to the idea Oswald just thought he'd go get a Coke.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I figured you needed more than one person pumping his own thread, so I'll add this...

http://www.blackopradio.com/direct_downloads.html


DiEugenio / Bugliosi Review MP3
Price $10.00

Reclaiming History exposed as the fraud it is...
From Shows: 347, 389, 392, 395, 398, 400, 402, 404, 405, 432, 436, 438, 440, 445, 447, 455, 458, 460, 463, 464, 466, 468, 483, 484, 494.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. "Price $10.00"

Working on commission these days, MrMickeysMom?

Maybe you or Mr. DiEugenio should buy a DU ad?

[MrMickeysMom]

25. Are you accusing me of advertising?

If you are, you had better consider either apologizing for a wrongful accusation, or consider deleting your post.

You have been warned.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Yes.

Bring it.

You and I have a long history over the years, and your insults and belligerence toward me is inescapable in every interaction you pursue with me. You certainly did post a link to a source that people would have to pay to listen to. That's advertising. Own what you did.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. You and I don't rise to the level of having "history"...

I occasionally posted in the same genre (happens to be called "creative speculation&quot over the years... Any "history" we happen to have between us is relevant to JFK threads whereby you and your brethren make fun of and pile on people who happen to have a difference of opinion. When those you pile on get to the point where you are called out for what you do, you act like the victim.

It matters not, and personally, I think people are sick to death of hearing this shit.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. I'm glad to see you've put it all out of your beautiful mind.

Anytime you want to stop stirring and merchandising and start discussing the topic is fine by me.

[MrMickeysMom]

43. Bolo Boffin...

Stick to your day job... it's much better than what you do here.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. MrMickeysMom

Thank you for your concern.

[zappaman]

37. Here ya go

Try reading with this playing in the background.
It might help you.

[William Seger]

35. Does it have a spooky one-note soundtrack?

'Cause if you just want to read DiEugenio bashing Bugliosi with pointless point after pointless point, that's free here. But I'm sure it would be much more convincing with a spooky one-note soundtrack.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

23. Sorry to interupt all the cheering.....

.....here at the National Oswald-Dun-It Convention but I'm wondering, with all of Oswald's preparation, what's Bugliosi's explanation as to why Oswald would be such an idiot as to leave his fingerprints?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Why do you need an explanation for this?

The fingerprints that are left have a simple explanation: Oswald left them. Why did he leave them? He either missed them in a clean-up job or he figured they were innocuous enough.

Getting Oswald's fingerprints on the places they were left if Oswald didn't leave them there: that's the notion that requires a convoluted explanation.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

36. I suppose that means.....

.....Bugliosi has no explanation for this.

Buggsi paints a picture of a man with a plan, a man who is seriously trying to get away......but he neglects to erase his fingerprints?????

D.M.A.F.S., sorry.

[zappaman]

38. Drats!

If only he hadn't left his fingerprints, he would have gotten away with his dastardly plan!
The explanation is he left his fingerprints because he touched the items.
I guess you will now want an explanation as to why he was wearing pants that day?

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Buggsi. Cute.

The evidence shows a man in a "frenzied flight." That's Bugliosi's own words. People in a frenzied flight make mistakes.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

45. So Buggsi doesn't....

.....address this? Hmmmm.

To me, Oswald's behavior is more clearly matching that of someone who knows something's going to go down and then realizes that instead he's about to take the fall and flees. Probably does shoot Tippett and awaits a rendevous with his contact at the theater when he's betrayed. Spooks 'R Us. ONI, White Russians and CIA. Unseemly company if you ask me.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. How exactly would Oswald have acted differently if he had killed JFK?

You say it's "more clearly matching" fleeing from being framed. How do you figure that? What would he have necessarily done differently if he had killed the President as well?

ETA: I don't know if Bugliosi addresses your exact question or not. I don't know that it's important to anyone but yourself.

I do know that later in this list, he talks about brown fibers on the gun consistent with Oswald's shirt, which would support Oswald wiping down the gun with his shirt before stowing it. So the answer to your question about Oswald not trying to get rid of the fingerprints is moot. He did.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

57. I'm calling Superman immediately.....

.....to come rescue you from the planet of Bizarro!

You mean to tell me that Buggsi, while going to all the trouble to identify 53 reasons he believes Oswald dun it, doesn't address Oswald's prints? Hah, hah, hah, hah...........

If Oswald did shoot JFK, and he intended on getting away, why would he have changed so many aspects of his public behavior/interaction with others? That would only draw attention to himself.

sorry, still doesn't make sense.

BTW, do you even know where Oswald's prints were?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. No, thanks. All I need is a simple answer from you about what you meant.

You claimed the evidence fits Oswald running from a frame job more closely than it does Oswald running from having done the deed. I'm very interested in your reasoning on that.

Bugliosi does deal with the fingerprints. I'm only in the 30's right now. Patience, I'll get them all in here.

That Oswald did change so many of his established patterns of behavior before the assassination is not in question. He did. The answer as to why he did is that he only learned that week of the President's route in front of the TSBD and had to retrieve his rifle. The change of behavior couldn't be helped. I'd be interested also in hearing why you think Oswald changed his patterns of behavior the way he did.

Oswald's prints were found on the rifle, on the handmade paper bag found in the sniper's nest, and on two of the boxes of the sniper's nest.

[zappaman]

47. LOL!

"To me, Oswald's behavior is more clearly matching that of someone who knows something's going to go down and then realizes that instead he's about to take the fall and flees."

Yes, he clearly wouldn't be fleeing after killing the President of the United States.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. Not much sense to me either...

There is more to wonder about Bugliosi's really, really lengthy book and why it would stand up to many others so better referenced.

Bugliosi should have just stopped after Helter Skelter fame.

[OrwellwasRight]

116. That's not true.

Getting Oswald's fingerprints on the places they were left if Oswald didn't leave them there: that's the notion that requires a convoluted explanation.

There is no logical connection between a second gunman and an argument that "Oswald wasn't there." In fact, All of your points that I have read so far have NOTHING to do with any reasonable second gun theory I have ever read. All they do is confirm Oswald's statement that he was "a patsy." Who ever said "Oswald wasn't there"? Just because he was doesn't mean there was no second shooter, or that there was no conspiracy. Red herring . . .

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Among the people who didn't say "Oswald wasn't there": me.

And you even quoted me before you went off on that tangent.

There has been absolutely no evidence ever presented of a second shooter. No one can even decide where this second shooter was supposed to be.

This is the thread that talks about the evidence Oswald actually committed the crime. I'm glad you understand that he was involved. There are others that do not understand this. This thread is for them.

[OrwellwasRight]

128. You seem to be spending a lot of time disproving

something that I don't think anyone proposed is my point. If you think that many have proposed it, well I guess that is your experience. Where was he supposed to have been?

And as for no evidence of a second shooter?

-witnesses who saw/smelled smoke from the grassy knoll/fence
-witnesses who claim they saw a possible shooter in the grassy knoll/fence area
-witnesses who heard shots coming from the grassy knoll
-Dallas PD tape in which you can hear 4 shots
-timing of the use of Oswald's rifle indicating that you could not aim and get three shots off in the time allotted
-autopsy evidence that JFK was hit from the front
-the "magic bullet"

Try reading a number of books /reports if you think there is "no evidence ever presented of a second shooter":
Rush to Judgment
On the Trail of Assassins
The Kennedy Conspiracy: 12 Startling Revelations About the JFK Assassination
Best Evidence
Crossfire
HSCA

etc.!

Again, I have no illusions that you will change your mind about a second shooter. And I have no intention of trying to change it. But saying there is "no evidence" of a second shooter is simply incorrect. YOU may not find the evidence credible, and that of course if your prerogative. But there is indeed EVIDENCE.

[Bolo Boffin]

143. Your list of evidence.

-witnesses who saw/smelled smoke from the grassy knoll/fence

How can you tell the direction a smell of smoke comes from? People can't tell the direction sound comes from most of the time. This is not credible evidence.

-witnesses who claim they saw a possible shooter in the grassy knoll/fence area

And yet when the site was examined mere moments after the assassination, no one was there and no trace of them escaping or ever having been there at all. This again is not credible evidence.

-witnesses who heard shots coming from the grassy knoll

Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber. Not credible evidence.

-Dallas PD tape in which you can hear 4 shots

That "four shots" audio evidence has been conclusively proven to have been recorded after the assassination, not during. This is worse than non-credible evidence. It's wrong and misleading.

-timing of the use of Oswald's rifle indicating that you could not aim and get three shots off in the time allotted

This is simply false.

-autopsy evidence that JFK was hit from the front

Again, simply false. The bullets came from the back.

-the "magic bullet"

The path of the second bullet through Kennedy and Connally is called the "magic bullet" theory based on a lot of wrong assumptions about where Kennedy and Connally were seated. Properly located, Kennedy and Connally being shot by one bullet fired from the sixth floor window of the TSBD is the most reasonable inference (I'd say the only reasonable inference) from the evidence.

[OrwellwasRight]

149. Many of these are largely debunked by Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassin

Which, as I said above, I don't expect you to read or be influenced by. Your mind is made up. As is mine. Your insults will get you nowhere, and I welcome you to stop.

[zappaman]

150. "Your insults will get you nowhere, and I welcome you to stop."

What insults?
The poster tackled each of your points in an honest manner.

You're not here to discuss, are you?

[OrwellwasRight]

151. I am not here to be told that people do not know what they smell and where.

That is just insipid. Also, I have laid out my evidence, you and your pal have laid out yours. You have not convinced me. I have not convinced you, nor have I tried. What more is there to "discuss"? It seems to have devolved into:


"It's not opinion about the Dictabelt. Or where Kennedy was shot from. Things like that are not negated by your opinion of them."

In other words, just saying that my evidence sucks and yours doesn't. If my evidence is "not credible" and only yours is, how in the world can you think there is anything to discuss? There isn't. That's not productive. Nor is it discussion. Nor is it even seemingly aware that there are many books and documentaries and first hand accounts and official government reports that do support these and other bits of evidence that indicate a second shooter.

for what I hope is the final time, I have done my own reading and thinking and disagree with you and your buddy.

So feel superior or whatever, but quit trying to convince me. You won't.

And you also apparently lack the capability to be able to agree to disagree, which I would think would be a necessary prerequisite for a forum entitled "creative speculation."

[zappaman]

152. You really have a chip on your shoulder.

No one has insulted you.
No one is trying to make you feel inferior.

Sorry you can't discuss without taking it personally.

[OrwellwasRight]

157. The fact that you can't agree to disagree means you are in fact trying to make me feel inferior.

You simply can't abide that I read different books than you and find them credible. You have to keep saying that I don't know the facts. I do. I just draw different conclusions from them. The fact that you can't live with that must mean you have a chip on your shoulder.

I don't live in a world where everyone must succumb to my will. As I said in post # 131:

"Again, I am not trying to disabuse you of any notion. But nor should you me. As I said earlier, I have read, viewed, and listened to a number of sources, and I am not convinced of the lone gunman theory and do not think I ever will be.

But thank you for your input and opinion."

In case you missed it, this is an invitation to stop trying to get me to jump to your conclusions. And yet you have not. Fascinating.

[MrMickeysMom]

241. Chip?

I think there is no "chip".

In fact, why don't you make a histogram of the number of "posts" in this silly thread from the same predictable thread-posters and tell me who likes to see their names over and over and over and over and over

and over

and over

and over

and over

and over again...

So many chips in this silly thing, you need a good dip and a couple of napkins.

[OrwellwasRight]

158. I'm not here to engage in Monty Python Argument Clinic Style "discussions"

"Yes, your list in #128 is made up of non-credible evidence and false and misleading assumptions.

One and all. If those "facts" are the basis of your conclusions, then you've been led horribly astray."

This is most certainly an insult. Calling his evidence credible but mine not? On what basis? On that fact that he is a Vincent Bugliosi fan and I am not? Calling me "led horribly astray"? If that is not calling someone feeble minded, I don't know what is.

I listed several books that are well written and documented and have cogent evidence and reasonable conclusions. Neither you nor your buddy is interested in "discussing" them. you are only interested in repeating your opinions that any evidence that doesn't support your conclusions is wrong, or debunked, or non-credible. That's not "discussion," that's contradiciton. And I have no interest in it. I would prefer to agree to disagree and go post somewhere else a bit more hospitable.

[zappaman]

159. " I'm not here to engage in Monty Python Argument Clinic Style "discussions""

Right, I get it.

You're here to agree to disagree.

Have at it.

[OrwellwasRight]

164. I already did. nt.

[MrMickeysMom]

242. Should you wish, there are some real threads here...

They occasionally get urinated on, however.

[zappaman]

244. And deservedly so.

[Bolo Boffin]

154. If you think I've insulted you deliberately, alert on my post.

The disinterested reader will see I've called your list of evidence non-credible, wrong, and/or misleading, not you. You've certainly been misled by it.

[OrwellwasRight]

155. Oh yes, my feeble mind has been misled. Woe is me.

I can keep this up as long as you can. Or you can just face the fact that I am not put off by your implicaiton that I am feebleminded, and, as I said about 10 posts ago, you are wasting your breath. You will not convince me, and I am not naive enough to try to convince you. We draw different conclusions. That ought to be the end of it (however, I suspect that, as before, it won't be).

[Bolo Boffin]

160. "your implicaiton that I am feebleminded" - something you're importing to the conversation.

You're determined to see an insult to you in what I say. Why don't you get back to the actual discussion of facts instead of manufacturing this specious complaint to cut it off (a complaint and charge you don't see fit to submit to a jury of randomly selected DU members, I might add)?

[OrwellwasRight]

163. You refuse to discuss the facts.

You've already told me I know none. That you are the only one that knows any. I am "naive" (past 125) and been led horribly astray (post 144). If those are not insults, I do not know what is. But that is not my point. My point is there is nothing to discuss with you. Everything I raise, you mock, without even allowing for the fact that reasonable minds can differ or that other authors than Bugliosi draw different conclusions. If they can't there is nothing to discuss. What don't you understand about this?

And what is your obsession with juries? I don't need a jury to verify my opinion of you.

[Bolo Boffin]

165. Do you understand that 'credible evidence' and 'non-credible evidence' are legal terms?

They are not insults. They are important terms for the discussion.

The facts remain.

The Dictabelt is not credible evidence for a fourth shot. The timing of the part of the tape claimed to have four shots on it has been demonstated to be a recording a minute after the actual assassination happened. That evidence is non-credible, and can be dismissed along with the conclusion of the HSCA that there was a fourth shot, since the Dictabelt was the sole basis for that conclusion.

The wounds on Kennedy's body did not come from the front. Both of them came from the back.

I agree that a discussion is not possible when the facts cannot be acknowledged. But your opinions don't change the reality of the evidence.

[OrwellwasRight]

166. Thank you for the legal lesson counselor.

Obviously, many people in the country find the argument of a second shooter credible, that is why so many books are published on it. And a judge would find the argument regarding the wounds credible, given that they can be testified to by a Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst and court certified expert in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida, totaling in over 30 Judicial Districts and Louisiana State Federal Court, whose areas of expertise included Crime Scene Investigation, Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis. (The aforementioned but ignored Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination by Sherry Fiester). Not to mention other sources, also mentioned earlier and ignored by you.

[Bolo Boffin]

167. Oh, Sherry Fiester was present at the autopsy and was able to examine the body? n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

168. Oh, you were? nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

169. I'll take that as your "No, Fiester was not." n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

173. I'll take that as a no, Bugliosi was not as well. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

176. So let's all acquiesce to those who were at the autopsy. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

177. um, no. that's the point.

There are too many problems with the autopsy:

-missing time when the body should have been at the autopsy but wasn't
-burned notes
-photos that have been kept classified
-testimony of witnesses from Parkland who dispute the autopsy report's description of the wounds

etc.

Besides, forensic experts not present at autopsies (they are called defense witnesses) testify in court all the time. They are considered credible because of their expertise, and they can apply their expertise to challenge the conclusions of others, based on their own analysis of the evidence and conclusions the prosecution draws therefrom.

So "being present" is not a requirement, and it's a straw man when your expert wasn't there either.

This tiresome. Good day, sir.

[Bolo Boffin]

170. Also, there's a slight problem with the location Feister IDs as the site of the kill shot.

There's no way to shoot Kennedy from that area.

Start around 6:00 in.

[OrwellwasRight]

174. Yes, because everything you believe is superior to what I believe.

You tube. The awesome resource. Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

175. Very strange how you insist on making this personal

when it's not and never will be on my part.

If you ever bother to watch that video, you will see with your own eyes that anyone taking aim in Fiester's designated area would have no shot. It is physically impossible. Since that's true, Fiester's assertion of backspatter is incorrect. The shot could only have come from behind, and that means the TSBD sixth floor.

[OrwellwasRight]

178. No, I don't insist on making this personal.

You do, by continuing to insist on ignoring my personal requests to stop. I keep trying to tell you, arguing you with you is no fun, it is not a discussion, it is boring and pointless. You do not discuss. You denigrate. You do not have an open mind. You only care to be right and you do it by blindly insulting other's analysis and saying brilliant things like "oh, was your expert at the autopsy?"

Gee, that's high level discourse. Not.

The video clearly says "I would keep an open mind" about the south overpass position. So I do not find that consistent with your assertion that there would be "no shot." Not to mention that, even if it did say what you think it said, then one video + one book with an opposite conclusion does not equal you win. It equals different people coming to different conclusions, like us. There is no definitive answer.

Further, unless you are a forensics expert with training in blood spatter science, perhaps YOU should keep an open mind on her analysis of front spatter and back spatter, instead of substituting your judgment for hers. And even if you are, then what we have (again) is the differing conclusions of two experts. Game not over. Draw. Leave it be that there are different theories based on different conclusions based on all the evidence. There is not only one conclusion--yours. You won't win with me, no matter how many posts you make mocking my evidence and propping yours. On the other hand, I do not denigrate your conclusions and tell you that you are wrong. I say, let's agree to disagree. You cannot accept that.

Your A&E documentary (clearly the pinnacle of all science, by the way) is a perfect example. Who in that video was at the autopsy? Why do you hold others to a standard you don't hold yourself to? Because you have no interest in engaging in real discussion. All you seem to want to do is wear me down into accepting your position, and I have said I have no interest in that. That I won't change my mind on the basis of discussions with you, so I do not feel there is anything more to talk about. Why can't you take no for an answer? You can feel free to continue to believe in the superiority of what you believe but I would kindly ask you again to leave me out of it.

[Bolo Boffin]

179. You are misrepresenting the video in this response.

The sniper expert in the video clearly does NOT say "I would keep an open mind" about the south overpass position. He clearly says that about the NORTH overpass position. This is what he says about the south overpass position:

You know, Gary, there’s no shot there. Not unless I went through the windshield itself – then you’d have the shot. But without going directly through the windshield, there’s no shot.

Feister's analysis, however, excludes both the Grassy Knoll position AND the north overpass position. Her graphic at her website shows this clearly. It's the south overpass position or nothing with her. And yet the video demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that there is NO SHOT from the south overpass position.

So you are going to have to chuck her analysis in one way or another unless the conspirators had the limo pull into a windshield glass shop before hitting Parkland.

Now did you misrepresent the video on purpose? I don't think so. I think you heard what you wanted to hear, the same as your insistence on wanting to hear an insult in what I am saying to you. People do this all the time. But there is no insult in what I say. A quick submission of any of my remarks to a DU jury will confirm this. And as long as you continue to post here in a public discussion forum about something I'm keen to discuss, I will respond to you within DU guidelines and rules as I wish. You will not put me off by claiming I'm insulting you when I know I'm not. You will not wear me down by misrepresenting the facts of the JFK case.

There was no shot from the south overpass position. Feister's analysis leaves no possible shot at all. What is the new and weakest point of it? The assertion that it is backspatter seen coming from the front of Kennedy's head.

Oswald alone shot Kennedy that day.

[OrwellwasRight]

180. Agree to disagree.

At some point, you are going to get as bored of this pointless conversation as I am and you will leave me alone (or so I can only hope).

Until then, you need to look in the mirror. Why did you not address the other books I posted about (see post #128)? Why do you believe A&E is valid and Feister not? You didn't answer that, did you? Why os popular TV your source for science? You didn't answer that.

You know what, though, I don't care--I am not trying to "wear you down." Unless that implies I am trying to get you to leave me alone, which I am most certainly trying to do.

You must have a problem understanding the phrase "we draw different conclusions so why don't we leave it at that." THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT PHRASE TRYING TO WEAR YOU DOWN, nor inviting you to continue to debate me for that matter. I have not asserted the superiority of my conclusions over yours, so there is nothing to debate.

You believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone. Awesome. Please continue to enjoy that belief. It doesn't offend or harm me or threaten me. I don't care if you have it or if you don't have it.

I don't know how I can make it clearer to you that I have drawn my own conclusions on this long ago and you have zero chance of changing my mind (see post 131 for example).

And I ask you AGAIN to stop and leave me alone. SERIOUSLY. What do you not understand about invitations to end the conversation and leave me alone? (See, e.g., posts 142, 145, 149, 155, 163, 177, and 178).

Good day, sir.

[Bolo Boffin]

181. You misquoting the video is not an "agree to disagree" moment.

You did. You attributed the "keep an open mind" to the south overpass position. It's actually made about the north overpass position, well outside Feister's placement of the shooter.



See? This is straight from Feister's blog. The north overpass position, the one to "keep an open mind" about from my video, is completely outside Feister's trajectory cone. And the sniper expert completely dismisses the south overpass position because there is no shot. Anyone can see that there is no shot anywhere inside Feister's trajectory cone.

As long as you keep posting in a public discussion forum, I will keep responding.

[OrwellwasRight]

182. Again you ignore my post to focus on what you want to talk about.

Still not impressed. Still don't care what you think.

[Bolo Boffin]

183. Well, I'm not impressed by someone who misrepresents the facts.

And then, when shown that he or she has made a clear mistake, will not admit to it.

And as long as you keep posting on a public discussion forum, I will respond as I see fit. Not to mention this being a thread I started!

[OrwellwasRight]

184. I have not misrepresented any facts.

You assume so because you think your opinions are facts. Keep it up.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. Yes, you have.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people continue to deny things that are linked to and easily verifiable.

[OrwellwasRight]

186. Um, no I haven't.

You are not open to any interpretations or experts other than your own. That is not a discussion. That's just contradiction. See prior posts.

I also love your ownership rights over this this thread and forum simply because you are a host. You might also consider hosting a "believe every single thing the government and A&E tell you" forum. You might then not have people wander in who mistakenly assume you are open to an actual discussion.

[zappaman]

187. I thought you wanted to be "left alone"?

So, why do you keep posting???

[OrwellwasRight]

188. And why do you?

Continually calling me a liar is not leaving me alone. Leaving me alone is leaving me alone. Big difference. Again, LOVE how you two have to gang up to win and can't fight your own fights. I haven't posted to you in a week. But you keep coming back to defend your buddy. Awesome.

[zappaman]

189. Point to one post where I, or anyone else calls you a liar.

Show us.
Awesome.

[OrwellwasRight]

192. Post 183, for instance.

Well, I'm not impressed by someone who misrepresents the facts.

Misrepresenting facts = lying.

If you don't believe that is true, I suppose the Bush Administration didn't lie about yellow cake uranium either.

Please.

[zappaman]

193. Your words in reply to me...

"And why do you?
Continually calling me a liar is not leaving me alone"

Please point to a post where I call you a liar.
If you can't, you are a ____?

[OrwellwasRight]

196. Post 183, for instance.

Well, I'm not impressed by someone who misrepresents the facts.

Misrepresenting facts = lying.

If you don't believe that is true, I suppose the Bush Administration didn't lie about yellow cake uranium either.

Please.

[zappaman]

198. Where is the post where I called you a liar?

I hope you are not LYING about that!

[OrwellwasRight]

233. Repetition.

I guess that is what happens when you edit your question because you get an answer you do not like.

[Bolo Boffin]

190. Fact: You claimed a statement was made about the south overpass position. It was about the north.

Fact: You misrepresented what the video said about the south overpass position.

Fact: You have yet to admit this.

Fact: I only asserted "ownership rights" over this thread because you continue to try to tell me how to respond in it and in this public forum.

Are you constitutionally incapable of understanding what it is you have done?

[OrwellwasRight]

191. Fact: You posted the video and asked me to watch it.

Fact: I watched a bit of it.
Fact: I quoted from it about shots from the overpass.
Fact: You didn't like the quote I chose.
Fact: You quibble about south overpass versus north overpass on the basis that your video is credible and the book I cited isn't.

And the video is credible why exactly? I'm not sure. I don't particularly look to A&E for my source of science.

But it appears you want me to say I mixed up the south and the north from the video. Then by all means, I mixed them up. I hope that makes you happy, and helps you decide you can leave this conversation be. I sure doesn't hurt me to say it.

I guess it is a big deal for you because you want the only possible shot to be from the School Book Depository because you believe the only possible shooter was Lee Harvey Oswald. That's awesome that you believe that, and I fully support your right to believe it. I, however, don't.

What is also a fact is that I have told you I don't want to continue this conversation.

What is also a fact is that I didn't tell you how to respond. If I were to tell you how to respond, I would say "Hey, why don't you type back "We'll never agree, and we should end the conversation. This is boring and pointless." That's what I'd tell you to say.

But instead I will continue to say it: We'll never agree, and we should end the conversation. This is boring and pointless.

[zappaman]

194. "What is also a fact is that I have told you I don't want to continue this conversation. "

Yet you keep replying!

[OrwellwasRight]

199. You keep replying.

[zappaman]

200. "Leave me alone!"

[OrwellwasRight]

219. I would if you'd stop replying. nt.

[zappaman]

220. If you want to be left alone, why do you keep replying?

Why bother posting at all?

[OrwellwasRight]

222. Because I want YOU to leave ME alone.

If you would, I would not have anything to reply to, would I? Brilliant.

[zappaman]

223. Then why do you keep accusing me of calling you a liar?

When you can't provide a link to a post where I ever said that.

That makes you a ____?

[OrwellwasRight]

226. "KEEP accusing YOU"????

Mystified. What I KEEP doing is asking YOU and YOUR BUDDY to LEAVE ME ALONE.

[zappaman]

227. No, you keep saying I called you a liar

and you point to post #183 that you believe affirms that.

Except it doesn't, and furthermore, I didn't even write that post.

So again, I ask you to tell me what post I called you a liar in.

That's your accusation and I would like you to back it up.

Take you time.

[OrwellwasRight]

231. No, you keep editing your question.

I won't play your game.

[Bolo Boffin]

195. Fact: I am an irony junkie.

Fact: Trying to get someone who calls himself or herself OrwellwasRight to admit that they have materially misrepresented reality hits my addiction's sweet spot.

Fact: Watching someone called OrwellwasRight continue a conversation they claim they do not want to continue ALSO hits my addiction's sweet spot.

Fact: There is no shot from the only area Feister says the shot came from.

That is something the video establishes beyond any doubt. They brought an exact replica of the presidential limo to Dealey Plaza. They placed actors of the right size in that limo and put "JFK" over the exact spot on which the president was shot. In the area where Feister claims the shot came from, the sniper expert says there is no shot. Not the first location and not the south overpass location (which is actually just out of the area she marks out). JFK would have been blocked from a sniper in these locations by parts of the limo itself, parts that sustained no damage whatsoever.

It is physically impossible, the evidence being as it is, for a sniper on the south side of Dealey Plaza to have shot the president. This is not something I want to believe. This is a simple fact, easily verified by anyone who can watch the video.

But please do continue to replace these facts with your preferred beliefs and then tell me that's what I'm doing. Because as I said before, OrwellwasRight, I'm an irony junkie.

[OrwellwasRight]

197. You are many things.

A person with an open mind is not one of them. A person not obsessed with what I think is one of them. A person who gets what Orwell was saying is not one of them. The point of 1984, so you don't have to read it, is that the government lies to you to control what you think. Irony? Check.

[zappaman]

201. Governments lie.

Facts don't.

Some posters also lie when they accuse other posters of calling them liars!

[OrwellwasRight]

218. See post #183.

You clearly call me a liar. Unless you don't understand the meaning of words.

[zappaman]

221. I didn't write post #183

Which, by the way, does not call you a liar.

Care to try again or are you going to keep on with this nonsense?

Provide the link where I called you a liar...unless you are lying about that.

[OrwellwasRight]

230. Show me the post where I said "you" called me a liar.

As opposed to saying I was being called a liar -- by the combined ganging up of you and your buddy, who answer each other's responses, and who can't apparently take down anyone single handedly. I never knew I was such a threat till I found this thread.

To be clear -- since I guess reading the thread is not of interest to you, just calling names by implication.

Post #183 (not from you) called me a liar. I responded in #184. Your buddy responded in #185. I responded in #186. With me so far?

In post #187, YOU asked:

So, why do you keep posting???

In post # 188, I answered why:

Continually calling me a liar is not leaving me alone. Leaving me alone is leaving me alone. Big difference.

Does that say YOU? No, it says WHY I keep posting. You asked why I kept posting. I assumed you meant why I kept posting to someone ELSE, given that the post you responded to (#186) was not to you, and that I had not posted to you in quite a while. I went on to marvel at your ability to intervene in your buddy's posts. And to post a smilie.

If you had asked "Why do you keep posting to ME?" I would have answered quite differently. Namely, I would have answered, "I don't."

Now, let's proceed to post #189.

You asked:

Point to one post where I, or anyone else calls you a liar.

Now, that bears repeating. You said

I, or anyone else

So, in post #192, I answered you by referencing to post #183, which clearly calls me a liar. If you do not think post #183 calls me a liar, you should perhaps get a dictionary and study the meanings of words. Meanings of words are important. Very important.

In post #193, I don't totally understand your point or your use of blanks (afraid of something, I guess?). But you seem to be implying that no one called me a liar.

They did. And so I repeated my post in #196. Your response really didn't merit any more effort than that, frankly.

So in #198, you again imply that I am lying because you claim not to have called me a liar. Interesting. That was never your question. I guess you just didn't like that I could answer your question so you changed your question to being just about you.

To be clear (in case that was too much): In post #189, you asked if anyone had called me a liar. When I showed that they had, you changed your question.

Not an effective argument technique. So not impressed. And to answer your new question: #221.

I'd be happy to cut and paste this answer in response to your next answer if that will help.

[OrwellwasRight]

234. Yes, some posters do. Hello pot.

Meet kettle. Just because you used the word "some" doesn't mean you didn't just call me a liar.

[Bolo Boffin]

202. My mind is quite open to the facts and reasonable interpretations of them.

It's why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza and that he acted of his own volition. I'm happy to consider any further evidence and reasonable arguments.

So far you're batting zero on that account.

[OrwellwasRight]

217. I don't want you to consider any additional evidence.

You have already made it quite clear you are not interested. You raise the points you think you can shoot down and ignore the rest. As I keep repeating, it is boring. You must enjoy it though.

[Bolo Boffin]

237. Why? Because if I do, that conflicts with the little box you want to file me away in?

Sorry, that's not up to you.

[OrwellwasRight]

239. What?

[Bolo Boffin]

243. What, indeed.

Telling me you don't want me to consider any additional evidence. That's not for you to decide, OrwellwasRight.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. (16) After the assassination, only Oswald missed a roll call at the TSBD.

There were actually two - the first he and Charles Givens missed. However, Givens was located on the premises soon after. At the second roll call, only Oswald was gone.

This fact and the next several concern Oswald's flight from the scene of the crime. Flight is legally circumstantial evidence of the consciousness of guilt.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

66. The devil really is.....

...in the details. Flight can certainly be evidence of guilt.

But it might be guilt of involvement that is no more than vague foreknowledge.

Buggsi's got nothn' here.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Vague foreknowledge? The roll calls were taken after the assassination. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

28. (17) Oswald walked past his normal bus stop and walked seven blocks to board a different line.

Oswald's normal bus was the Beckley bus, which he boarded across the street from the TSBD on Houston and Elm.

Today, he walked past this stop and walked seven blocks, finally boarding a Marsalis bus, the "very first Oak Cliff bus that came along." The closest this route would take him to his house was half a mile.

This betrays a lot about Oswald's state of mind leaving the TSBD. This was not the action of someone who was casually leaving work to go catch a movie. This was someone trying to put as much distance between the assassination site and himself. This was, in Bugliosi's words, a "frenzied flight."

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Another weak point

Again, to clarify, I think Oswald did the shooting and acted alone.

But plenty of people could reason that the corner of Houston and Elm was not exactly the right place to wait for a bus in the aftermath of the assassination of the President that just took place...a block away. There are perfectly innocent reasons to put some distance between yourself and the major world-historical commotion if you're trying to catch a bus; there are also good reasons to take the first bus that gets you anywhere near your destination, since it's unclear what the traffic and service delays will be or whether bus service will even continue through the emergency.

(17) doesn't speak to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. (18) Oswald left the Marsalis bus when it got caught in traffic.

Another sign Oswald was in flight, and thus had a consciousness of guilt. Someone simply going home to go catch a movie would have stayed on the bus.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

59. Damn, Lee is thinking to himself....

.....even John Wilkes Booth had a horse! Where's my damn bus ticket? How come I had no means to get away after my dastardly deed?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Your attempt at parody/mind reading doesn't negate that this actually happened.

Nor does it negate that this is evidence of flight from the scene, which is legally circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. (19) Oswald's not speaking to the cab driver about the assassination is striking.

William Whaley picked up Oswald shortly after he got off the Marsalis bus. Whaley then asked about the uproar and police sirens, but Oswald said nothing.

It's not like Oswald didn't know what had happened. He did know, something all can agree on. The uproar was about the President's assassination. How many innocent people, knowing what had happened, wouldn't have responded at all to the cab driver's question? Of the extremely small reasons why someone wouldn't, one of them is certainly that Oswald had just killed the President and didn't want to discuss anything about it with a potential witness against him.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. (20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road.

A clear indication of consciousness of guilt. Oswald wanted to see if the police had made him yet. At this point, it was a half hour after the assassination. Had his presence been missed at the TSBD? Would someone in the crowd have seen him? Would his bosses have given police his address by now? All of this a guilty Oswald could not know.

And there is no innocent explanation for this drive-by.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. (21) Oswald's behavior at his boarding house indicates a flight in progress.

Earlene Roberts testified that Oswald had come in at 1:00 "all but running" and went straight to his room. He left quickly as well, Roberts noticing that he had put on a tan coat.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. (22) Oswald retrieved his revolver at the rooming house.

His explanation of this later to police shows he had no real excuse for carrying the gun: "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it." The only explanation is that he needed it to defend himself from capture.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. (23) In addition to getting a coat and his gun, Oswald changed trousers.

An almost complete change of clothes after fleeing the site of the assassination, and he armed himself as well.

These are not the actions of an innocent man.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Weak point

Plenty of people change out of their work clothes when they get home from work, especially when their work is dusty and dirty.

Again, to clarify, I think Oswald did the shooting and acted alone. But (23) is meh. Much of the "frenzied flight" evidence could also be explained by a person who seemingly will have the rest of the day off, it seems to me. He left the TSBD because no more work was going to get done. He went home by a route that sought to avoid the traffic commotion. He changed his pants? Well, ever work a warehouse job? You'd change your pants, too.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Oswald's clipboard was found later. He'd filled no orders. He'd done no TSBD work that day.

I have done warehouse work as well. If the only evidence against him was changing his trousers, everyone would excuse him, I'd hope.

It's the combination of all the evidence that builds the picture. Pack all of this, from the assassination to the murder of Tippit into 45 minutes. That's how long it took.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Yes, of course

Thanks for all these as well. I understand that it is the combination of points that one must read in the aggregate. I'll have a response to the whole when you're done posting. For now, I'm just going through and registering my reaction to each one, since part of the prosecutorial cumulative strategy is for each one to also be a little conviction in itself. I'm just noting those that don't speak to me. Notice that there are much more that I haven't commented on! (It's why I think Oswald did the shooting and acted alone)

Here again, whatever the fact of his work might have been, some people just change after work, especially in physical labor fields. It becomes habit. His action is just as consistent with somebody who is a) a little freaked out because the President just got killed (near his work, and he's a guy that had defected to Russia!) and b) thinks he has the rest of the day off from work. The changing of the clothes and putting a light jacket on just falls flat as "consciousness of guilt" evidence. Some of the other stuff is stronger, of course.

[secondvariety]

94. That's pretty weak.

Not everyone works in an office. Some people actually get dirty at work.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. If this was all there was, I'd agree the case was weak.

But Oswald didn't do any work that day. His clipboard was found with no orders filled.

And people fleeing from a crime they committed do try to change their appearance any way they can. That is what this piece of evidence supports.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. (24) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit.

There are more than a dozen eyewitnesses to Oswald committing this murder and his flight from the scene, revolver in hand.

Four witnessed the actual shooting. Helen Markham saw the entire thing. Jack Tatum, William Scroggins, and Domingo Benavides saw portions of the actual shooting. For instance, Scroggins saw Oswald approach Tippit's squad car, but lost sight of him. He heard the shots, saw Tippit fall, and then saw Oswald come into his view again carrying his revolver.

Many others saw Oswald's flight from the scene of this crime.

Oswald killed Tippit. This is beyond all doubt. And it's further evidence, the strongest yet, of his consciousness of guilt in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. (25) A store manager saw Oswald evading police sirens in front of his store.

This was a shoe shop a few doors down from the Texas Theater. Johnny Calvin Brewer, the manager, saw Oswald duck into the recessed area of the store just off the sidewalk as police sirens were heard. This was just minutes after Oswald had murdered Officer Tippit.

As the sirens receded, Oswald continued on toward the theater. Brewer was so struck by his behavior and unkempt appearance that he followed Oswald to the theater.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. (26) Oswald slipped into the Texas Theater without buying a ticket.

Another piece of evidence that supports flight from his crime, now from both the assassination of the President and the murder of Officer Tippit. Why no ticket? A number of explanations come to mind: one less person/witness knowing where he'd gone is the one I suspect.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. (27) When approached by police in the Texas Theater, Oswald said "Well, it is all over now."

From Reclaiming History, page 962:

What else could he possibly have meant by these words other than he knew the police had been in pursuit of him and were there to arrest him? And how would he have know they were after him if he hadn't killed Kennedy and/or Tippit?

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

65. Hmmm......

......what else could he have meant?

Boy this is a hard one. Lemme think. Could this be the words of a man who knows he's been hung out to dry by his associates and that he's going down?

It's a shame Buggsi's universe is so small.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Hung out to dry for both Kennedy and Tippit?

No, you're willing to allow Oswald killed Tippit.

You're also not too fond of answering questions, I see. Expand our universe here, Frank_Norris_Lives. Explain to us how Oswald acquired the knowledge that he was being set up as a patsy so certainly that he was willing to kill a police officer to escape.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. (28) Oswald then fought the police and tried to pull his revolver out.

There is no reason for Oswald to have had a loaded revolver and to have fought with police to resist his arrest other than the fact that he'd just killed Kennedy and Tippit. Innocent people out for a movie don't react like this. People with a consciousness of guilt do.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. (29) After arrest, Oswald refused to even give his name to arresting officers.

From Reclaiming, page 962:

As a pretty consistent general rule, when a person is innocent of a crime, he cooperates with law enforcement.

Oswald's flight from the Texas School Book Depository is a textbook example of someone fleeing their crime. He ran past his normal bus stop so no one would see him boarding a bus so close to the assassination. He boarded a bus that would bring him close to his home, but not right out in front. He left that bus because it wasn't moving fast enough. He took a cab but had the driver drive past his house. He ran in, grabbed his gun, changed clothes, and left again. He murdered a police officer in clear view of witnesses. He evaded capture and then sneaked into a dark theater. When approached by police, he tried to pull his gun and fight them off.

If Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, he couldn't have harmed his case any more than he actually did here.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. (30) Oswald made a clenched-fist salute to reporters.

This salute is the death-knell to the idea that Oswald was fleeing a frame job.



This calm, intentional act of defiance is supposed to be that of someone frightened of being framed for Kennedy's assassination?

I'm a little afraid of getting a shot. However, it's only right before the shot that I am anxious. Once the needle is in, I instantly relax and am fine. Is that how getting framed for a President's assassination is for Oswald? He'll run pell-mell to avoid being framed for the crime. Why he'll even kill a cop to avoid capture. But once the frame job starts in earnest, he's happy to play along?

[frogmarch]

67. My mom and I saw

the footage of him doing that live on TV. My mom said something like, “Look at that! He’s actually proud of what he did!”

[Bolo Boffin]

55. (31) Oswald refused a lie detector test.

By itself, this is nothing. As a part of this long chain of evidence, it's more support of Oswald's consciousness of guilt.

[OrwellwasRight]

117. Not necessarily.

Many people refuse to take lie detector tests -- particularly if they know they are nervous types -- which much of this "evidence" indicates. Moreover, again, so what? What does this have to do with disproving a second shooter?

[Bolo Boffin]

122. This thread is not about disproving a second shooter. It's about Oswald's involvement.

Many people do refuse lie detector tests, for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons happens to be that they have committed the crime.

[OrwellwasRight]

126. Sure. Of course. Or they decline because

English is not their first language. Or they are covering up a different crime. Or they don't trust machines. Or they don't trust the government. Or they know they are a bad liar. Or, or, or.

Many reasons why a person might decline in general. Some of which might apply to Oswald. None of which prove he acted alone.

If this is not about disproving a second shooter, then OK, I have nothing more to add.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. (32) After visiting him on Saturday, Marina came away convinced of Oswald's guilt.

She saw the guilt in his eyes. YMMV on that one, of course. But the kicker for her is the thing that strikes me as well:

Moreover, she said she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he'd been mistreated and demanding to see officials at the very highest levels, just as he had always done before over what he perceived as the slightest maltreatment. For her, the fact that he was so compliant, that he told her he was being treated "all right," was an additional sign that he was guilty.

Is there anyone here who has studied this case, that has followed Oswald's life in any detail whatsoever, that does not see the truth in this?

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Weak point

There's a difference between screaming for your rights when you are given a traffic ticket, or a landlord claims you owe more than you do, and acting consistently with past behavior when you're in custody for murdering the President of the United States. It's ridiculous to attempt to compare Oswald's actions in custody with Oswald's typical behavior in order to demonstrate anything, since the sheer psychological shock of being thrust into international notoriety negates any reasonable claim of consistency. It's a bit like saying that Sarah always speaks very softly, but practically yelled her every utterance after being charged with a horrific quadruple murder of her family - that's not her usual behavior! Well, I should think not.

So, (32) falls flat.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Yes, I agree YMMV on this one.

Marina seeing the guilt in his eyes falls flat for me, too. But the calm demeanor does work for me. As a front for the cops, sure. But not the reporters and certainly not Marina. An innocent Oswald would want documentation of the atrocities. But at this point, he was a martyr for his principles and his actions in service to them, not someone else's. He'd unlocked his life achievement.

Thanks for your comments here, alcibiades_mystery.

[alcibiades_mystery]

79. Thank you for the list! Fascinating!

I'm still going to say that the situation was psychologically severe enough that comparisons with typical behavior are useless. It's just a poor argument for Bugliosi to engage in such comparisons as if all things were equal.

[eomer]

91. Agreed. There also may be multiple explanations for his behavior, as well as for the other evidence.

His countenance may reflect guilt of something, but guilt of what? It may have been guilt of knowing he played some part but at the same time realizing that, as he claimed, the part he played was the setup patsy, either with or without firing some of the shots.

Similarly with the other 52 "reasons" - what are the various possible explanations that fit all the evidence, not just a cherry-picked selection of 53 points of evidence that say what you would want to show? Showing that Oswald played a part and performed certain acts does not rule out other conspirators playing parts as well.

I probably won't be back to debate any responses, just don't have the mental strength to engage in it right now. So I'll just say that in my opinion the totality of the evidence points to a conspiracy in which the CIA (or some rogue faction thereof) had some involvement. Please proceed with whatever rebuttal you want, my point will still be that and I'll likely just leave it at that, thanks for your indulgence.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Has Ancient Aliens covered this yet?

I would like a more rational, objective point of view, that we have all come to expect from the show, Ancient Aliens.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Well...

[ZombieHorde]

82. Oh, well there we go. The History Channel wouldn't make shit up. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

83. (33) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Its serial number was C2766. The writing on the purchase order and money order for the rifle was determined to be Oswald's by experts. The rifle was shipped to Oswald's post office box number.

Therefore, Oswald owned the rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor.

Marina took photographs of Oswald with the rifle in April 1963. Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel, in a place where another part of the rifle kept it from being wiped off.

Therefore, Oswald was in possession of this rifle.

There has never been any evidence presented that anyone else either owned or possessed this rifle.

Bugliosi also mentions here that fibers were found on the rifle consistent with the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. (34) The mostly intact bullet (CE 399) and two of the fragments were fired from this rifle.

There is no evidence excluding any of the discovered bullet fragments associated with the Kennedy shooting from being fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. At one time, the government asserted all fragments could be tied to the rifle. However, the test used to make this assertion, CBLA, was demonstrated in 2007 to not be reliable enough to make this assertion. 2007 was the year Bugliosi released Reclaiming History.

However, CE 399, also referred to as the "pristine" or "magic" bullet, and two of the large fragments, CE 567 and CE 569, were large enough to be identified as being fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others. This was not on the basis of the faulty CBLA test, but on a comparison to the striations found on them and on a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. (35) The three expended shells on the sixth floor were "fired in and ejected from" Oswald's rifle.

This was determined by firearms experts as well.

Oswald owned and was the sole possessor of the rifle that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and injure Governor Connally. No other weapon or even shells from another weapon were found anywhere around Dealey Plaza. No one has ever offered any evidence that someone else owned or possessed this rifle at any time before the assassination.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. (36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.

It had Oswald's fingerprints on it. It was "undoubtedly the bag Wesley Frazier saw Oswald carry into the Book Depository Building" that morning, the one Oswald told him was curtain rods.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. (37) Oswald's prints were found on boxes that comprised the sniper's nest.

His left palm and right index finger prints were found on the box that appears to have been set up to be a gun rest. Both pointed southwest, the directionthe motorcade took heading down Elm. His right palm print was found on another box just behind the gunrest carton.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.

Handwriting experts concluded the order for the revolver was written in his handwriting. It was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special, serial number V510210, and it was shipped to Oswald's post office box in Dallas, just as the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. (39) The bullets recovered from Tippit's body were consistent with being fired from Oswald's .38.

The bullets were .38 Special bullets, not .38 Smith & Wesson bullets, so they were a bit undersized for this revolver's chamber. This means the bullets would not necessarily have taken on the striations or markings on the side from the revolver to allow positive identification.

Nonetheless, one of the bullets from Tippit's body could be positively IDed as being fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. The other three "could have been" fired from the revolver.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. (40) The four cartridge shells found at the Tippit murder scene were fired from Oswald's revolver.

Firearms experts from both the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded this: all four spent cartridge shells were "fired in and ejected from" Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

So at the time of his arrest, Oswald was in possession of the gun that killed Tippit. He also had five .38 Special bullets in his pocket.

Reclaiming History, page 964:

So we now know that not only was Oswald the owner and possessor of the rifle that killed Kennedy, but he was also the owner and possessor of the revolver that killed Tippit.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

92. (54) Oswald said he didn't do it.

...which can only mean that he did do it!

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Oswald fleeing the scene of the crime says he did it.

Oswald being the sole owner and possessor of the rifle that killed Kennedy says he did it. Oswald's other lies while being interrogated says he did it. The physical evidence says he did it.

Other than that, I guess you have a point.

[secondvariety]

96. Others with as much

expertise as Bugliosi say Oswald wasn't a lone gunman. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1979 concluded that it was "probably a conspiracy" and that two gunmen fired at the President.

Personally, I think Oswald fired at JFK but there's no way a half-wit like Oswald acted alone. The more I read about the assassination, the less I buy the Warren Commission's conclusion.

[zappaman]

97. Do you know what they based this statement on?

"The House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1979 concluded that it was "probably a conspiracy" and that two gunmen fired at the President."

???

[secondvariety]

99. One of the things

they used was a Dictabelt recording of a motorcycle police officer's radio. Some experts refute it, some don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

For every piece of evidence that Oswald acted alone, there's evidence that he didn't and vice versa. I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with the official conclusion that LHO was a lone gunman.

[zappaman]

101. Actually, most people refute it.

The National Acadamy of Sciences conducted its own analysis in 1982, and found that the
assumptions of the HCSA analysis were flawed.

The dictabelt recording included traffic from two radio channels, not one and the "shot sounds" analyzed occurred over a minute after the assassination.

[secondvariety]

102. The NAS

was paid by the Justice Department to undertake this analysis, I believe. Take from that what you want. Personally, I'm skeptical of any info that has connections to the Reagan administration.

Hey, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. There's lots of opinions and convincing arguments for multiple scenarios, I just don't think LHO acted alone.

[ryan_cats]

161. I've only been to Dallas a couple of times but do bullets just fly around all the time?

I've only been to Dallas a couple of times but do bullets just fly around all the time? If the dictaphone was from a minute later, where did the four recorded shots come from? Was Dallas a war zone in 1963? A couple drunken good old boys? And a police officer's open mike was near enough to hear them and didn't check them out?

Please keep in mind that I do think Oswald did it. When do we get to see the sealed records?

Oh yeah, you make me laugh, keep it up. I miss the mini nuke guy and christophera and his concrete core with c4 built in.

[zappaman]

162. Well, under digital analysis 20-30 years later...

what the HSCA thought was a shot, turned out to be random noise.

AND later than the actual time of the assassination.


Mini-nukes are quieter than gunshots and I do admit there is a possibility they were used in Dallas since we had stolen the plans for mini-nukes from the aliens who crashed at Roswell.
See how everything just comes together?

[ryan_cats]

171. Was that before or after Earth was quarantined?

Was that before or after Earth was quarantined?

[zappaman]

172. Wow.

I had completely forgotten about that!!!

I'm assuming it was after cuz we've been under alien quarantine for some time?

[frogmarch]

98. There is no way

that any person or group hell bent on killing JFK would conspire with a half-wit like Oswald.

[secondvariety]

100. I don't know-

he seems to have been a easily manipulated type, passionate in his beliefs to the point he was almost manic about them, former military who knew his way around weapons, had zero money and according to some, a wife who was getting fed up with having zero money.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. (41) A paraffin test on Oswald's hands showed he'd fired a revolver just before his arrest.

Speaks for itself.

[bogmanla]

250. Does the paraffin test showing Oswald never field a rifle that day speak for itself as well?

Not to mention none of his fingerprints were on the rifle.

[Bolo Boffin]

104. (42) Oswald left his blue jacket behind in the TSBD.

He would get his tan jacket at the boarding house, but the jackets weren't needed at this point. The temperature at Love Field was 76 degrees when the Kennedys landed, unseasonably warm, and Jackie was regretting wearing the wool pink suit Jack had picked out for her.

Marina IDed the jacket as being Lee's. Oswald's hair was found in it. Another bit of information supporting a conclusion of a consciousness of guilt.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. (43) Oswald's tan jacket was found along the path Tippit's killer took.

Earlene Roberts saw that Oswald didn't have a jacket on when he entered, but was zipping up his jacket as he left. Yet when he was arrested at the Texas Theater, he wasn't wearing a jacket.

Police found a light-colored jacket under a car behind a Texaco gas station Oswald was seen running behind after the murder of Officer Tippit. Marina IDed this jacket as her husband's. Mary Brock was the last person to see Oswald before the shoe store manager saw him near the Texas Theater. Her husband worked at the Texaco, and she saw him wearing a tan jacket at the time.

And finally, fibers consistent with Oswald's shirt were found in the jacket under the car.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. (44) Oswald's work clipboard was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

There were three orders for that day. Oswald had not filled any of them.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. (45) Oswald lied about owning a rifle, and about owning the Mannlicher-Carcano specifically.

As Bugliosi puts it on pages 963-964:

It's interesting to note that although Oswald himself knew the obvious, that ownership of the murder weapon was tantamount to identifying himself as Kennedy's killer, his countless defenders in the conspiracy community apparently do not realize this.

[bogmanla]

251. No transcription or recording was made of Oswald in DPD custody

So this point and many others Bugliosi claims for "evidence" are pretty weak. To be honest, I'd heard about Bugliosi's top 53 reasons for Oswald's lone nuttiness and figure they'd be stronger.

A good portion of his reasons are what authorities said Oswald said under custody later but DPD kept no notes, had no recording equipment and no stenographer.

The odd thing is the FBI said they ostensibly had taken over the case by the evening of the assassination but never recorded Oswald either. They did record his scared Russian widow days later in captivity (safety) for seven hours -- and her comments also make up a good portion of Bugliosi's "evidence."

BTW, FBI agent Hosty was told by HQ to stop interrogating Oswald altogether after Mexico City came up. He has said that. Look it up.

Thought there would more to the lone nut theory. Apparently not. Nothing here says Oswald couldn't have been set up by a sophisticated conspiracy by people who know how to put one together, especially one supported by the full power of the government in cover-up mode. After Oswald's killed in policy custody, the FBI and Warren Commission made it clear there was no need to investigate or subject any of their witnesses and evidence to cross-examination.

As Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said shortly after his retirement, "Nothing we have puts that gun in Oswald's hands in that window." Even Hoover told LBJ the case was "not very very strong" before Oswald was killed.

Too much malarkey.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. (46) Oswald lied about being in the backyard photo where he was holding his rifle.

He went so far as to say his head had been superimposed onto someone else's body, even though Marina took the pictures of him herself.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

203. 1) Did Lee Harvey Oswald have a clift chin or a flat-bottomed chin?

a) The photo taken by the police shows that he had a clift chin:


b) The backyard photos show a flat-bottomed chin.



http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html


2) Did LHO have abnormal fingers on his right hand?

The backyard photos show an unusual right hand with stubby fingers which are missing fingernails:



3) If the photos were not manipulated in a dark room, is there a credible reason as to why the angles of the shadows changed between the two photos?




4) If the photos were not manipulated in a dark room, can anyone duplicate the stance in the following photo without falling forward in the direction of his right arm?

[zappaman]

204. Here are some links for you to read and will answer your questions.

The photo was made public in late February 1964, simultaneously appearing on the cover of Life magazine and on the front page of the Detroit Free Press. Within days it had appeared in many other publications. But sharp-eyed observers noticed that the photo appeared to have been tampered with since details differed from publication to publication. In particular, details of the rifle differed. For instance, in the version that appeared on the cover of Life (top) Oswald's rifle had a sniper scope. But in the version that ran in the Detroit Free Press (bottom), the sniper scope was gone. The Detroit Free Press version reappeared two weeks later in Newsweek.

These differences created suspicions that the photo was fake. Oswald himself, when shown the photo in jail, claimed he had never seen it before and insisted someone had superimposed his head onto another body. However, the photo was real. The variations (and accidental erasure of the sniper scope) were caused by photo editors touching up the photo in different ways in order to heighten the contrast between dark and grey areas. This was a common practice in the publishing industry at the time, due to the limitations of the printing process.

In 1978 the Select Committee on Assassination of the House of Representatives commissioned a panel of photographic experts to study the photo. Their examination included microscopic analysis of the photo, as well as photogrammetric comparison of Oswald's face to other photos of him (including two other photos taken in his backyard). No evidence of tampering was found. The mysterious line across Oswald's chin was determined to be a water spot.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/oswalds_backyard_photo/


More? Okay.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt


Here's more...

http://www.perceptionweb.com/perception/editorials/p6580.pdf

Not enough? Okay.

The main questions that conspiracy theorists need to answer if
they think the photos have been faked are:

1.) How did the plotters/photo-fakers get Marina Oswald to ADMIT to
having taken the photos?

2.) How in the world did these clever plotters get Lee Oswald HIMSELF
to SIGN one of the photographs?*

3.) Why in the wide, wide world of "Presidential Assassination Patsy
Conspiracy Plots" would the perpetrators of this photo-faking scheme
feel there was any need whatsoever to "fake" MULTIPLE pictures that, in
essence, depicted the EXACT same thing (i.e., Oswald with guns and
Russian newspapers)?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos-part-2.html


Not done yet.

http://www.livescience.com/7941-incriminating-photo-lee-harvey-oswald-faked.html

And it goes on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-plesser/iconic-lee-harvey-oswald_b_346990.html


So, these photos have been examined by experts and found to be genuine.
There are many many more links supporting the assertion that they are real.
I'm sure you will go to at least one of these links and read all the way thru.

If you are an expert in photo manipulation, your views must be taken seriously.
Are you?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

206. If someone said something about a "mysterious line across Oswald's chin," it was somebody

other than me.

I asked, among other things, "1) Did Lee Harvey Oswald have a clift chin or a flat-bottomed chin?"

The photos are there for you to compare. Or not.

The question is a simple one. Should we believe what others have said? Or should we believe our lying eyes?

[zappaman]

208. Maybe you should believe the experts using technology not available 50 years ago.

Are you an expert?

Which link(s) did you read?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

209. Who says that I don't believe the "experts." Are you trying to engage in a poor ad hominem attack?

If so, so what?

[zappaman]

210. So you do?

I'm glad we agree the photos are genuine.

Thank you for reading the links!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

211. So I do what? Believe "experts" instead of my lying eyes? Is that what you do?

[zappaman]

212. Do you lying eyes know the images you posted weren't manipulated

to make them look that way?

Yes, we agree we believe the experts.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

213. Obviously, you are obsessed with believing experts.

Again, so what?

[zappaman]

214. I believe experts over you, yes. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

215. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or even to think for yourself.

[zappaman]

216. Then why post those images?

Did you make them or find them on the internet?
If you didn't create them, where did you find them?

And what links did you read of the ones I supplied?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

224. This isn't about you.

[zappaman]

225. So you created the images you posted?

Why not provide a link?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

228. Others can see the link. Sorry to hear about your comprehension problem.

Obviously, the link is not going to help you with your problem.

[zappaman]

229. Oh, I see it's Ralph Thomas

Who is Ralph Thomas?
Is he an expert in photo manipulation?

I posted links from experts in photo manipulation.
Which did you read?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

232. Are you just kicking this thread? I'm done.

[William Seger]

235. Did you happen to look at more photos?

You can find others where it does appear cleft, and looking at all of them it would appear that whether or not the chin looks cleft depends on both the angle of the head and the light.

I would expect a real photo-analyst to know that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

238. You "would expect a real photo-analyst to know" that whether or not the chin looks cleft depends on

on both the angle of the head and the light."

Maybe real photo-analysts do know that. It may be that even ordinary people know that. Even the ones who don't post snarks.

Have you found someone who has said the contrary?

As noted at #203, "b) The two backyard photos show a flat-bottomed chin."





http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html

If you really think that the back yard photos have chins which match the photos that you've posted (and if you really think that photos # 3 and 4 are not merely similar but match one another and also match both (a) the backyard photos and (b) photos #1, 2, 5. & 6 of the Lee Harvey Oswald who was shot on TV), you must be one of those "real" photo-analysts of which you speak.

[William Seger]

240. Oh, sorry

I mistakenly thought you were looking for an answer when you asked, "Did Lee Harvey Oswald have a clift chin or a flat-bottomed chin?" Silly me.

But perhaps you were really interested in having this one answered?

> 3) If the photos were not manipulated in a dark room, is there a credible reason as to why the angles of the shadows changed between the two photos?

No, there isn't, nor is there any reason to think that's actually the case (unless you are easily deceived by random red arrows). Here is how a real photo-analyst investigated the claim for the HSCA:

The consistency of the shadows was also evaluated by application of the vanishing point principle. The concept of "vanishing point" perspective is widely known with respect. To artists and applies to photography as well. (178) This concept simply means that parallel lines in object space are depicted as converging lines on the image which will eventually meet at a point. Because. the Sun's distance from Earth is so great that it may be considered infinitely distant, it follows that,, in any sunlit scene, lines from objects to their shadows arc parallel. When these parallel lines are pictured the corresponding lines on the picture converge at a point known as the vanishing point. A picture of parallel railroad tracks provides a good illustration; the tracks are seen to converge to a point at the horizon.

In the case of the railroad tracks, the vanishing point is in the picture. This may not always occur. If the lines are perpendicular to the camera axis (the line from the center of the lens to the center of the film), the images of the lines will not appear to converge at a point, on the picture. The vanishing point may then be considered to be at infinity. In other cases, where the parallel lines are not perpendicular to the camera axis, the vanishing point is either in the picture or some finite distance outside it.

When this is the case, the directional consistency of shadows may be tested by drawing lines from images of objects to the corresponding points on the images of their shadows, and then extending these lines (beyond the actual picture if necessary) to see if they are meet at one point. If the lines do meet at one point, they are parallel and therefore consistent. If they do not met at one point, they are not parallel and consequently are not consistent.

When this analysis was applied to the backyard prints by drawing lines from a part of the stairway, the butt of Oswald's pistol, the muzzle of the rifle, Oswald's nose, et cetera, to the corresponding points on the shadows cast by these objects, the lines all met at the vanishing point. (See figs. IV-34 and IV-35, JFK exhibits Nos. F-387 and F-388.) Accordingly, the shadows were determined to he directionally consistent. A vanishing point analysis on 133C(Stovall) also yielded consistent results.

[frogmarch]

205. An analysis of the photos:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/reports/TR2010-669.pdf

Screen shot of page 13, pertaining to the chin:



Caption: (bold emphasis mine.)

Figure 8: Shown along the top row are frontal views of Oswald with neutral front lighting.
Shown below is Oswald and the corresponding 3-D rendering from the backyard photo.
The yellow guidelines of the same width are drawn at the point in the top photos where
the chin meets the jaw line. Note that the apparent widening of the chin is due to the
shading along the chin and jaw.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

207. Yea, the top and bottom photos look exactly the same.

[Bolo Boffin]

236. Or did he have a pointed chin?

Pointed.

Oh, wait, it was flat-bottomed: see?



Oh, my goodness. I think we're onto something here. There were THREE OSWALDS.

I wonder which one Jack Ruby shot?



The pointed-chin one. OMG, this is huge.

Seriously, I think you missed the evidence up above. Marina took these photographs, something that to my knowledge she has never recanted. She described the circumstances, she described what Oswald was wearing, what he was holding, everything.

Oswald's handwriting including his signature was found on a copy of one of these photographs he'd given to a friend.

Furthermore, the HSCA could find "no evidence of fakery." They had the actual photographs to examine, not copies like you and I are displaying here. They had the original negatives. Three of your points (and one you didn't mention) did not pan out on examination. They looked for "alleged shadow inconsistencies, an indication of a grafting line between the mouth and the chin, inconsistent body proportions and a disparate square-shaped chin."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0043a.htm

Lee Harvey Oswald is holding the rifle that killed John F. Kennedy in these backyard photographs.

[Bolo Boffin]

109. (47) Oswald lied about having seen the picture before.

He denied this, but handwriting experts concluded it was his handwriting on the back of a copy of this photo "found among the personal effects of a friend of Oswald's who later died."

Writing on a faked incriminating picture of yourself and giving it to a friend is certainly going above and beyond the call of duty in helping the real perps frame you.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. (48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the rifle was taken.

The photograph of Oswald with the rifle that would kill Kennedy was taken at an apartment on Neely Street in Dallas. Oswald, Marina, and their daughter June lived there for about two months.

However, Oswald omitted this apartment in listing the places he'd resided since returning from the Soviet Union. The list was complete, including his Fort Worth and New Orleans residences, except for this one omission. He told police officers he'd lived at the address previous to the Neely apartment for seven months, covering the time he'd actually lived at Neely Street.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. (49) Oswald lied about telling Wesley Frazier the curtain rod story. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

112. (50) Oswald lied about putting a long package into Frazier's car that morning.

Both Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, saw him do this. Frazier also saw Oswald carry it into the TSBD, although Oswald denied this as well. He also denied telling Frazier curtain rods were in the bag.

Many have said this package was too short to carry even a disassembled Carcano rifle. Then what was in the bag? Why didn't Oswald say what was actually in the bag if it was non-incriminating?

Bugliosi, page 966:

To put it succinctly, if Oswald's rifle wasn't in the bag, he wouldn't have had any reason to lie and say he didn't put that bag on the backseat of Frazier's car and did not carry it into the building that day.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. (51) Oswald told police the only thing he'd brought to work that morning was his lunch.

Frazier testified he'd noticed that this was the only time Oswald had left Irving without taking his lunch.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. (52) Oswald lied about having lunch on the first floor with two other employees.

He only named one of these employees, James Jarman Jr., called "Junior," but Jarman testified that he'd eaten alone that day.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. (53) Oswald lied about where he'd bought his revolver.

He said he'd bought it in Fort Worth, but he'd actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.

[OrwellwasRight]

118. Yes, this obviously proves he killed the president.

Alone.

[zappaman]

119. It's not one of these that proves it.

It the sheer mass of all of this evidence that does.
Funny how you can only pick one here or there to try and refute.

Let's see you refute every single piece of evidence that shows Oswald acted alone.

[OrwellwasRight]

120. Even all 53 of these together do not prove he acted alone.

They indicate that he was there, had a gun, was involved, etc. They do not prove the absence of other actors.

I could give you more than 53 reasons from any competing book that disputes the lone gunman theory. So what? I am sure that would not convince any lone gunman believer.

You have made a case that Oswald was involved. Woopee! Who ever said he wasn't? Red herring.

[Bolo Boffin]

123. You are the one with a red herring in this thread, OrwellwasRight.

I'm glad you understand that Oswald was involved. Many people have said that he was not, and anyone remotely familiar with JFK conspiracy research would know this.

[OrwellwasRight]

124. Not true.

I have read much on the subject, viewed documentaries, and even attended lectures. I have not come across any expert who contends that Oswald was an innocent bystander who randomly or mistakenly implicated by the police. If that was the case, why would Ruby have killed him? Why would he have "defected" to the USSR and then be allowed to come back without having to spend time in prison as a traitor? Why would he have tried to confess before the day of the assassination?

I really have no idea whose theories you are espousing when you say "many" say he was not involved.

No red herring. Lots of evidence that of a conspiracy. Try David Lifton's Best evidence for one. All you have to do is look at the drawings of the autopsy photos (why the drawings? you tell me why the original photos aren't available) to see that the shots did not all come from behind.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. Google "oswald innocent" if you really are this naive.

I won't provide links to this nonsense.

[OrwellwasRight]

127. Well that's hardly evidence.

Many might think he was involved but "innocent" of actually killing the President since the President was shot from the front.

And I don't think I have to debunk the notion that just because you can google something on the internet = proof the idea is supported by legitimate researchers, including researchers who have spent many years on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Question.

But thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate it.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. Allow me to disabuse you of the notion that Kennedy was shot from the front: he wasn't.

Two entrance wounds in the back of the President's body, one in the head, the other in the back. Two exit wounds, one in the front of the head, one obscured by a tracheotomy. Back to front, both wounds.

[OrwellwasRight]

131. Again, I refer you to Best Evidence.

A number of the wounds looked different from the descriptions of the Dallas doctors and the official autopsy in Bethesda, even accounting for the tracheotomy and other work done to try to save the President's life in Dallas.

Again, I am not trying to disabuse you of any notion. But nor should you me. As I said earlier, I have read, viewed, and listened to a number of sources, and I am not convinced of the lone gunman theory and do not think I ever will be.

But thank you for your input and opinion.

[zappaman]

132. I've read BEST EVIDENCE and met David Lifton.

Do you consider him a "legitimate researcher"?

It is one of the most far fetched theories out there.

[OrwellwasRight]

133. I don't think you understand my use of the term "legitimate researcher"

And I don't think I have to debunk the notion that just because you can google something on the internet = proof the idea is supported by legitimate researchers, including researchers who have spent many years on the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Question.

If I don't have to debunk it, that means I assume we all agree that we don't subscribe to the theory. And what theory do we not subscribe to? The theory that just because you can google something, that is proof that the idea is supported by legitimate researchers.

My whole point was in response to the other poster's proposition that most who don't believe that Oswald was a lone gunman also don't believe Oswald had any relation to the shooting at all. That has not been my experience in the books I have read, films I have seen, or lectures I have attended. So that was the sole meaning of my use of the term. I meant nothing additional, and if you inferred otherwise, you were mistaken.

It follows then, that I never said whether I thought David Lifton was a legitimate researcher or not. However, I found his book well researched and reasoned. When you write a book as thorough and with as many footnotes, send it to me. I'll read it and give you my opinion. Until then I find your opinion that his theory is farfetched unconvincing, though I have no problem with you holding it. It is none of my concern.

As I have already said numerous times, I don't expect the lone gunman subscribers to change their minds, and I am not trying to make them do so. Nor do I expect to change my mind, particularly not with such convincing arguments as "I've met David Lifton and find his theories far fetched."

[zappaman]

134. Are you a man of his word?

"When you write a book as thorough and with as many footnotes, send it to me. I'll read it and give you my opinion."

Almost 1000 pages of footnotes contained on a CD ROM...Vincent Bugliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY.
THE most thorough book on the assassination.

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250

[OrwellwasRight]

135. I said "you."

When "you" write such a book:

When you write a book as thorough and with as many footnotes, send it to me. I'll read it and give you my opinion. Until then I find your opinion that his theory is farfetched unconvincing,

Again, you seem to have trouble sussing out my meaning, which I am not trying to hide.

I am telling you why your opinion on Lifton is not convincing to me. Having read the book and found it convincing, I trust my own judgment. I do not trust your contrary judgment as I know nothing of you or your skills as a researcher or logician. If you send me evidence of your skills as such, I will review them, and if I find them convincing, then I will consider why you and I come to different conclusions from the same evidence. Until then, I don't really care, nor do I find you convicing.

You apparently do care. I find that fascinating. If I'm so stupid, why do you care what I think? Apparently, you think I am easily swayed or intimidated. No such luck. You should stop now as you will find your efforts fruitless.

[zappaman]

141. LOL!

[Bolo Boffin]

137. I understand your use of the term "legitimate researcher" just fine.

It's quite like the usage of the term "true Scotsman."

[OrwellwasRight]

138. That post was not addressed to you.

But thank you for your opinion.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. No, but you've used the term in posts directed to me.

And that's what we do here, share our opinions with each other on a public discussion board.

And the occasional fact.

[OrwellwasRight]

142. Facts like those posted in #128?

Yes, you post facts, but everyone else posts, what, non-facts? As I have said numerous times, I have read, viewed, and listened to evidence numerous times. I have drawn my own conclusions. And this thread is not changing my mind (see also posts #131, 133, and 139). I don't find it compelling at all except to back up Oswald's claim that he was a patsy.

[Bolo Boffin]

144. Yes, your list in #128 is made up of non-credible evidence and false and misleading assumptions.

One and all. If those "facts" are the basis of your conclusions, then you've been led horribly astray.

[OrwellwasRight]

145. Thank you for your opinion.

As I said I don't share it. No matter how superior you think it is.

[Bolo Boffin]

146. It's not opinion about the Dictabelt. Or where Kennedy was shot from.

Things like that are not negated by your opinion of them.

[OrwellwasRight]

147. Sorry, but the books I have read beg to differ. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

156. Back at ya.

[OrwellwasRight]

148. I'm sorry for you.

You've apparently never experienced the basic human sensation of smelling something. See, the way your sense of smell works, is that if there is a large enough concentration of certain kinds of molecules, you experience the sensation of "scent." As those same molecules become less concentrated (say, as you move farther away from a bonfire or trash bin), you don't experience that same sensory perception. That is why people on the grassy knoll smelled smoke (a gun had been fired nearby). I never heard anyone in the School Book Depository discuss smelling smoke.

But yes, you know every "fact." Any I am stupid. Cheers!

[Bolo Boffin]

136. Interns and doctors trying desperately to save JFK's life vs. a lengthy, laborious autopsy

Both shots came from behind. Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded this beyond any doubt.

Bugliosi's treatment of the autopsy and the gunshot wounds is on pages 382-449 of Reclaiming History.

[OrwellwasRight]

139. See post #131. nt.

[zappaman]

130. "legitimate researchers"

How do you know the difference between legitimate and not legitimate.

And, if you don't know, we have posters here at DU who aren't sure if "Oswald is a hero or not".

[cpwm17]

245. Kicked for the anniversary

[meanit]

246. No matter how many insist that the Warren Report was right,

a very large segment of the country still does not and will not buy it.

However, younger people may be sold on the "Oswald did it and a patriotic American named Jack Ruby shot him for it" bullshit, because a lot of them care as much about the JFK assassination as we do about President McKinley getting shot.

[Bolo Boffin]

247. Argument ad populum is a fallacy on either side of the issue.

It's the facts and evidence that matters in the end, not how many agree one way of another.

[meanit]

248. More evidence may still be out there

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

249. Perhaps for Oswald's associates.

But as for the events in Dealey Plaza, it's Oswald alone.