What's your favorite reason for believing Oswald didn't do it?

[Tom Graves]

What are your favorite reasons for believing Oswald didn't do it?

1) He was a crummy shot!

2) He had a crummy rifle!

3) He didn't even own a rifle!

4) There were no nitrates on his cheek!

5) He couldn't possibly have fired all three shots in 5.8 seconds!

6) As those nice KGB officers in Mexico City said, he was way too nervous fire a rifle accurately, so it must have been the CIA!

7) He admired JFK!

8 ) He was standing on the front steps!

9) He was in the second-floor lunchroom, buying a Dr. Pepper I mean a Coca-Cola!

10) He said he didn't do it and that he was just a patsy!

11) [fill in the blank!]

[Dan O'meara]

What are your favorite reasons for believing Oswald didn't do it?

1) He was a crummy shot.

2) He had a crummy rifle.

3) He didn't even own a rifle.

4) There were no nitrates on his cheek.

5) He couldn't possibly have fired three shots -- with two hitting the target -- in 5.8 seconds.

6) As those KGB officers in Mexico City said, he was way too nervous fire a rifle accurately, so it must have been the CIA.

7) He admired JFK.

8 ) He was standing on the front steps!

9) He was in the second-floor lunchroom, buying a Dr. Pepper I mean a Coca-Cola.

10) He said he didn't do it that and that he was just a patsy!

11) [fill in the blank]

My favourite reason is the eye-witness testimony of those who saw the man on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination.
They describe the shooter as wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
That he had a bald spot Oswald didn't have.
That this spot was only visible when the shooter leaned his head to the left, indicating a left-handed shooter.
That he appeared to be much older than Oswald.
That he was firing a rifle that didn't have a scope.
That the shooter was still stood at the window as the limo entered the underpass when he was supposed to be racing downstairs.

I also like the fact that Bonnie Ray Williams had his lunch in the Sniper's Nest. That really caused the WC Sham some headaches.

(I'm only joining in because I can't stand to see you rack up yet another zero-reply thread  )

[Tom Graves]

My favourite reason is the eye-witness testimony of those who saw the man on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination.
They describe the shooter as wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own.
That he had a bald spot Oswald didn't have.
That this spot was only visible when the shooter leaned his head to the left, indicating a left-handed shooter.
That he appeared to be much older than Oswald.
That he was firing a rifle that didn't have a scope.
That the shooter was still stood at the window as the limo entered the underpass when he was supposed to be racing downstairs.
I also like the fact that Bonnie Ray Williams had his lunch in the Sniper's Nest. That really caused the WC Sham some headaches.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

You wrote, "My favourite reason is the eye-witness testimony of those who saw the man on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination."

It's a pity that those witnesses were standing far below the sixth-floor window and looking up at a sharp angle.

You also wrote words to the effect, "Bonnie Williams had lunch in the Sniper's Nest."

You're wrong, danny BOY o'meara.

There was a tall partition, comprised of stacks of boxes, between Williams and the Sniper's Nest.

Do try to get your facts straight, won't you?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here a few of the reasons I don't believe Oswald did the shooting:

-- The alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond Oswald's mediocre rifle skills.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

-- Oswald's alleged shooting feat has actually never been duplicated. The only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, the WC's rifle test that involved three Master-rated riflemen, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's supposed performance. See

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.msg170647.html#msg170647

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

-- Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he thought highly of JFK.

-- Voice-stress analysis (VSA) of his adamant claims of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth, especially when he said he had not shot anyone.

-- The accounts of the women who went down the stairs shortly after the shooting refute the idea that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the assassination.

-- NAA study of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek found no chemical traces of gunshot residue, powerfully indicating he did not fire a rifle during the assassination. See

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4438.0.html

-- Oswald could not have gotten inside the foyer door to the second-floor lunchroom without being seen by Roy Truly, who was running well ahead of Officer Baker. Even the WC's highly rigged reenactment of the Baker-Oswald encounter proved this beyond any reasonable doubt.

-- The JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove definitively that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.0.html

-- The first hit on JFK occurred when a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed by the oak tree.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4358.0.html

[Tom Graves]

The alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond Oswald's mediocre rifle skills.

"Mediocre" my you-know-what.

Oswald, firing a rifle with iron sights at targets as far away as 500 yards, was rated as highly as "sharpshooter" in the Marines.

Oswald's alleged shooting feat has actually never been duplicated. The only rifle test that used the alleged murder weapon itself, the WC's rifle test that involved three Master-rated riflemen, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's supposed performance.

Were they given 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots?

Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he thought highly of JFK.

Oswald was a psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist who was interviewed by the KGB at least twice in Moscow and who had lived half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk for two-and-one-half-years.

If he didn't kill JFK for the KGB, he killed him for his own twisted psychological reasons and to "advance The Dialectic."

Voice-stress analysis (VSA) of his adamant claims of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth, especially when he said he had not shot anyone.

Body-language experts have concluded otherwise.

The accounts of the women who went down the stairs shortly after the shooting refute the idea that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the assassination.

He probably started down about 20 seconds before they did. Therefore, he could have been just inside the lunchroom and Truly and Baker could have been inside the lunchroom's "vestibule" when Adams and Styles were quickly traversing the short distance between the stairwells in the corner.

NAA study of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek found no chemical traces of gunshot residue, powerfully indicating he did not fire a rifle during the assassination.

Did anyone ever fire the Carcano to determine whether or not it sprayed nitrates on a shooter's face?

Oswald could not have gotten inside the foyer door to the second-floor lunchroom without being seen by Roy Truly, who was running well ahead of Officer Baker. Even the WC's highly rigged reenactment of the Baker-Oswald encounter proved this beyond any reasonable doubt.

See above.

The JFK autopsy skull x-rays prove definitively that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

LOL!

Good one!

The first hit on JFK occurred when a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed by the oak tree.

JFK (and JBC) was first hit between Z-222 and Z-224.


D'oh.

[John Mytton]

Did anyone ever fire the Carcano to determine whether or not it sprayed nitrates on a shooter's face?

Any recreation that doesn't use Oswald's actual rifle is pointless but luckily Oswald's rifle was used to analyse the ejection of nitrates onto the shooters face.

Testing with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!



Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

And again!

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct

Lieutenant Day from the Dallas Police Department also testified regarding nitrate residue from a rifle and tells us that Oswald's face cast was the first one he was associated with and then Day goes on to explain that "in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle".

Mr. DAY. I directed them to make it, and also paraffin casts or just of a piece of paraffin on the left side of the face to see if there were any nitrates there.
Mr. BELIN. On the left side or right side of the face?
Mr. DAY. Right side.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what the results of the paraffin tests were?
Mr. DAY. The test on the face was negative.
Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?
Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, "Why didn't you do it?" Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle, would that have anything to do with that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In what way?
Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight.
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you ran these tests you had understood that the man, Oswald, had fired a pistol, too, hadn't he?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Would you expect to have any positive tests from a pistol on the cheek?
Mr. DAY. I would expect more with a revolver with an open cylinder than I would from a rifle. Actually, for most practical purposes, I would not be surprised if there would be no nitrates from a man firing a rifle.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

-- The first hit on JFK occurred when a gunman in the sixth-floor window would have had his view of JFK obstructed by the oak tree.

For a start, from Zapruder's POV, JFK was first hit just before he emerged from behind the sign.
The SS simulated the Limo position at a number of Zapruder frames and compared these locations to what Oswald would see through his scope from his Sniper's nest, but unfortunately the Limo the SS used was not the same model(lacking the much lower jump seat), so the position of Connally as compared to Kennedy could not be accurately recreated and has led many people to say that the positions of the two men based on the following SS recreation does not support the Single Bullet Fact.

Oswald clearly waited for the Limo to clear the Oak tree before he took aim with his 2nd shot. Thanks Michael, for adding further evidence to explain the sequence of shots being fired from Oswald's Sniper's Nest.




A direct comparison between Z225(a fraction of a second after the SBF, approximately Z222/Z223) and the SS recreation shows that the Connally stand-in was too high and too close to the side of the Limo, now when we align the corrected position with the SS recreation we can see that Connally indeed was in the location that fully supports the SBF.



Connally's jacket billows as the bullet passes through.



Both men react simultaneously.



JohnM