Oswald Acted Alone Is The Most Popular Theory

[Dan O'meara]

   The Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE regarding the tracing of bullet trajectories is routinely admitted into courtrooms as EVIDENCE across the USA day-in-day-out. The lone gunman stuff has Always been based on nothing more than a THEORY. Kinda like when people merely accepted the THEORY that the Earth was flat. Just like that Theory was eventually guffawed at, SCIENCE has now Proven that the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE".  And that result also vindicated the relentlessly ridiculed Cyril Wecht.

Hi Royell, you seem to be the self proclaimed expert on the Knott Lab Laser reconstruction so I wondered if you could help me out with something I don't quite understand about it.
I watched a brief video outlining the reconstruction and how it relates to various photos taken around the time of the assassination. It zooms all over Dealey Plaza showing us views of the throat shot from numerous angles. It then whizzes up to the SN and turns around to show us the view the shooter had and the angle of the bullet [the green line]:



We then zoom down the green line toward the limo where we see how it passes through JFK and hits JBC. Which looks like this:



Now this is what I'm not sure about.
In the pic above the red line appears to show where the bullet entered Connally's back and passed through him. The green line shows the line of the bullet from the SN through JFK to where it hits Connally's back.
It looks to me like the green line hits Connally's back about 10 inches away from where it is supposed to hit [the red line].
Is this what Knott have come up with?
That, according to their calculations, a bullet from the SN would've actually hit Connally about 10 inches away from where it actually did?
Is this what they have demonstrated?
Am I missing something because I feel I must be missing something really major here.
Can you tell me what it is.

[Richard Smith]

Almost every witness who encountered Oswald in close proximity after the assassination described his manner of dress differently and even in conflict with one another other.  Some of these witnesses knew it was Oswald they were describing because they worked in the TSBD.  What is the most reasonable way to reconcile these different descriptions?   Was Oswald changing his clothes from encounter to encounter?  Was it not Oswald even though some witnesses knew him or Oswald himself confirmed these encounters took place (bus, cab)?  Or did they simply get some details incorrect because they had no cause to notice and/or used subjective words to describe his appearance which are then subjectively interpreted to suggest a conflict.  Regardless, how does any of this explain the fact that Oswald's rifle was left at the scene of the crime and fired shell casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired?  That is a classic can't see the forest for the trees rabbit hole.  Oswald has no credible alibi, flees the scene, and murders a police officer.  He leaves a trail of evidence that links him to the crime that he can't explain.  The pedantic nitpicking of witness descriptions of someone seen through a 6th floor window when we know that even those who stood face to face with him got the description incorrect is contrarian weak sauce.  And, of course, one witness identified Oswald as the assassin.   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Almost every witness who encountered Oswald in close proximity after the assassination described his manner of dress differently and even in conflict with one another other.  Some of these witnesses knew it was Oswald they were describing because they worked in the TSBD.  What is the most reasonable way to reconcile these different descriptions?   Was Oswald changing his clothes from encounter to encounter?  Was it not Oswald even though some witnesses knew him or Oswald himself confirmed these encounters took place (bus, cab)?  Or did they simply get some details incorrect because they had no cause to notice and/or used subjective words to describe his appearance which are then subjectively interpreted to suggest a conflict.  Regardless, how does any of this explain the fact that Oswald's rifle was left at the scene of the crime and fired shell casings from that rifle were found by the window from which the shots were fired?  That is a classic can't see the forest for the trees rabbit hole.  Oswald has no credible alibi, flees the scene, and murders a police officer.  He leaves a trail of evidence that links him to the crime that he can't explain.  The pedantic nitpicking of witness descriptions of someone seen through a 6th floor window when we know that even those who stood face to face with him got the description incorrect is contrarian weak sauce.  And, of course, one witness identified Oswald as the assassin.

Let's flip this argument about the clothing around: if these witnesses had all described his clothing correctly (however we define that) but they all said it wasn't Oswald, the man's facial qualities were different, it didn't look like Oswald, I don't think any "Oswald was innocent defenders" would accept that as evidence it was him. Anyone saying, "They got the clothes right" would be responded with, "They said it wasn't Oswald!"

In any case, as you point out, no one is relying solely on eyewitnesses. It's the totality of evidence - the circumstantial (primarily), eyewitness and physical - that we think point to Oswald. His behavior alone post assassination is a giant red flag (and it's why many of his defenders say he was a CIA agent/asset and left to meet his handler; his actions post-shooting are inexplicable otherwise).

[Richard Smith]

Let's flip this argument about the clothing around: if these witnesses had all described his clothing correctly (however we define that) but they all said it wasn't Oswald, the man's facial qualities were different, it didn't look like Oswald, I don't think any "Oswald was innocent defenders" would accept that as evidence it was him. Anyone saying, "They got the clothes right" would be responded with, "They said it wasn't Oswald!"

In any case, as you point out, no one is relying solely on eyewitnesses. It's the totality of evidence - the circumstantial (primarily), eyewitness and physical - that we think point to Oswald. His behavior alone post assassination is a giant red flag (and it's why many of his defenders say he was a CIA agent/asset and left to meet his handler; his actions post-shooting are inexplicable otherwise).

Yes, there is a simplicity that lies on the far side of complexity that some CTers appear unable to grasp.  Just because not everything can be known or explained doesn't mean nothing can be known or explained.  This case starts and ends with the rifle.  It belongs to Oswald.  It is left at the crime scene.  He is asked about the rifle and denies he owns it.  A lie.  There is no logical reason for it being left on the 6th floor and Oswald lying about it except for Oswald bringing it there and using it to assassinate JFK.  There is plenty of other evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to the crime but the rifle is the key.  Everything else is noise until the presence of the rifle is explained.  Conjuring up the mere possibility that some unknown person(s) left it there to frame him is just a baseless fantasy absent evidence of such.  No fact could ever be proven in human history if someone could just think up a possibility to raise doubt.  Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address if all I need to claim to show doubt is that someone present got the description of his manner of dress wrong.

[Charles Collins]

Fischer -

And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.

The above quote should make it clear that the clothing details they describe are somewhat ambiguous. In that era, button up collars and ties were more common. Especially among office workers. The above quote indicates to me that he is only trying to say that it definitely was not a buttoned up collar. “Open neck” appears to include a t-shirt, at least to Fischer. With so much evidence pointing to LHO, he and his t-shirt seems to me to be what they saw in the window.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Fischer -

And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.

The above quote should make it clear that the clothing details they describe are somewhat ambiguous. In that era, button up collars and ties were more common. Especially among office workers. The above quote indicates to me that he is only trying to say that it definitely was not a buttoned up collar. “Open neck” appears to include a t-shirt, at least to Fischer. With so much evidence pointing to LHO, he and his t-shirt seems to me to be what they saw in the window.

Edwards said similar things, i.e., open neck shirt.

I would think that if Oswald was framed, if all of this evidence was planted by these powerful groups, that one key thing the conspirators would do is have the eyewitnesses read from the same script: e.g., get the clothing correct, say Oswald expressed hatred towards JFK, the workers saw him carrying a large package, the nitrate test on the cheek was positive, et cetera. But many of the same conspiracists who claim this was all manufactured then turn around and point to the inconsistencies of the eyewitnesses or these other areas. You can't have it both ways but in conspiracy land consistency is never a requirement.

[Dan O'meara]

What a shock!!
Three eye-witnesses describing the same clothing - a light coloured, open necked shirt - are all wrong because the Nutters know better.
And it's not that they all describe clothing different from that Oswald was wearing. It's that they are all consistent in describing the same clothing that Oswald wasn't wearing. They all corroborate each other.
Nutter Logic Alert - Of course this is just a silly mistake they all made because everybody knows it was Oswald doing the shooting, and if it was Oswald doing the shooting he must have been wearing Oswald's clothing but these three men aren't describing Oswald's clothes therefore they must be wrong.
At least Bill Chapman's tactic of producing a washed-out photo of Oswald being arrested to argue that his shirt looked a lot whiter in daylight has been abandoned 

But it's not like this is definitive evidence, maybe Oswald did have a sneaky sport shirt hidden in his rifle bag. It's circumstantial at best.
However, Rowland witnessing rifle man on the west side of the building while there was a black man in the SN is direct eye-witness testimony.
A black man in the SN at the same time Bonnie Ray Williams was having his lunch on the 6th floor.
The remains of this lunch being discovered on top of the boxes that form the SN by no less than SEVEN first responders.
The remains that were moved by Gerry Hill who was waving them out of the window, as reported by Jim Ewell.
Or is it really the case that Oswald cowered in silence for almost half an hour while Williams sat a couple of aisles away taking in the gloriously sunny day and his once-in-a-lifetime chance to see the President through a closed, dirty window. A window he could have opened with ease.
I find that odd.
Like I find it odd how Oswald wasn't noticed by anyone descending the stairs. Dougherty was more or less stood in the area he would have had to cross to get to the stairs down to the fourth floor where Dorothy Garner would have noticed him. Or any of the other ladies stood at the west windows in that area.
Maybe he teleported down to the second floor.
And maybe Oswald just had an outrageously lucky guess that Junior Jarman was hanging around with a very small black man, who can only have been Hank Norman, during the lunch hour. At the time Oswald said he was on the first floor, having his lunch in the Domino Room. Jarman and Norman entered the back door of the TSBD building to get an elevator up to the fifth floor. If they would have caught the east elevator, a person sat in the lunch room would never have seen them. But the east elevator wasn't available so they had to walk round to the west elevator and because of this - and only because of this - they became visible to someone sat in the Domino Room.
How could Oswald have guessed this if he were cowering in the SN at the time?
Is it a coincidence that Oswald claimed he was drinking a Coke at the time Baker burst in and that, in his initial report, Baker reported exactly the same thing but then crossed it out?

And loads of other annoying little details that all don't quite make sense.
The point is this - As far as I'm concerned, Oswald didn't take the shots. As far as you're concerned he did.
And if definitive evidence emerges that Oswald did take the shots I will gladly accept that as I just want to know what really happened.