JFK Assassination Forum

  Hi Dan! 

  I'm a bit baffled as to why you didn't receive an answer to your question from Royell Storing.   I was just leafing through this thread, and came upon this page, and noticed that you posted your question, with image included of the "Knotts" video on April 23.  Five days ago.  I'm interested in hearing Royell's answer.  The positions of both JKF and Connally and the trajectories aof the bullet is ludicrous.  JFK wasn't seated in that position, and neither of JBC when the bullet struck. Connally was seated with his back against the back cusion, as was JFK.
Where did "Knotts" come up with this nonsense?

This all seems like an opportunity missed. The model of Dealey Plaza and the limo seem great but when it comes to the most important aspect of this model - the occupants of the limo - it's like they got a 5 year old to do that bit. Everything that can be wrong about them is wrong - wrong size, wrong position, wrong relative positions. In comparison to the rest of the model, the occupants seem really crudely done. I don't understand why this is.
I can't find a critique of the Knott reconstruction anywhere. I know nothing about computer graphics but I can plainly see there is so much wrong here.
As for Royell...who knows.
He cannot stop going on about the Knott Lab reconstruction but ask him a question about it and he disappears.

"6. Before Oswald got into Frazier's car that Friday morning, the day of the assassination, he
placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat, telling Frazier it contained the curtain rods." bugliosi

but hang on did not Frazier say the package was around 24 inches long ? LONG AND BULKY ? .was not the area of the seat where Frazier said the package laid measured and found to be yes roughly 24 INCHES LONG ?. did not Frazier say that Oswald carried said sack in a manner that excluded it as being a 36 inch long (3 feet long ) package as per the warren commission ? . surely this is important information that should be given to readers ? .

"9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to
the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning's edition of the
Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination,
for the first time, he did not do this. " bugliosi

but on this morning with about 7 or 8 minutes before work started Frazier sat in his car while Oswald waited for him . . by the time Oswald finally walked off and reached the depository and walked in just how long would that leave him to read a paper ? .did frazier see Oswald after he entered the building ? .

"10. Despite the fact that the president's visit and route received enormous and inescapable
attention in the Dallas papers and on radio and TV, and that Oswald usually read both daily
newspapers each day and had to know what was happening, he asked co-worker James Jarman
somewhere between 9:30 and 10:00 on the morning of the assassination why people were gathering
around the corner of Houston and Elm When Jarman said the president was going to pass by the
building, Oswald asked if he knew which way he was coming, whereupon Jarman told Oswald the
president's route was from Main to Houston to Elm Obviously, Oswald was trying to create the
false impression that he knew nothing about the president's visit. If not, these were just two nervous,
pointless questions by someone who knew he was about to change history." bugliosi

again we see that any action by Oswald must be viewed as suspicious .


"11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard
Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth- floor window,
looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from
Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window
earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.
At the police line up that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, "He looks like him, but I
cannot positively say," giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and
that could have "messed me up." However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriffs office
within an hour after the shooting and before the line up saying, "I believe that I could identify this man
if I ever saw him again."  On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was "sure" that Oswald
was the man he had seen in the window. And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at
the line up, "with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man" but did not do so out of fear.
"If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I. . .might not be safe." Although
Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the line up, he did say, as we've seen, that Oswald
looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the
window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting — a slender, white male about thirty
years old, five feet ten inches — matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the
description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting." buglliosi

"And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the
window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting — a slender, white male about thirty
years old, five feet ten inches — matches Oswald fairly closely,"

brennan only saw who ever he saw  from the waist up . in order to shoot out that very low sat window that was only open partly one had to be kneeling . so then the question must be asked how could Brennan possibly say that the man was 5 feet 10 ? . brennan failed to identify Oswald , and only said it was Oswald after his death . what is not mentioned here is that the warren commission declined to rely on the supposed identification of Oswald by Brennan . instead saying he saw SOMEONE who he later believed to be Oswald .he was outside the building and identified Jarmin and Norman and Williams as men he saw in the 5th floor window . we are told Oswald left via the front door after 3 minutes and yet Brennan never sees Oswald . but we should not question that .

we will skip ahead here a bit

"13. Although in his interrogation on Friday afternoon, November 22, Oswald said he was having
lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination, during
Sunday's interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the
assassination, making him the only employee of the Book Depository Building who placed himself
on the sixth floor, or was placed there by anyone else, at the time we know an assassin shot
Kennedy from the sixth floor. In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of
the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined, saying, "You go on down
and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes." He said before he could finish
whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "went
downstairs,'" a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one
of their employees. The latter confrontation, of course, refers to Officer Marrion Baker, in Roy
Truly' s presence, talking to Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom within two minutes after the
shooting. Where was Oswald at the time the Negro employee invited him to lunch, and before he
descended to the second-floor lunchroom? The sixth floor. Charles Givens testified that around" bugliois

the above is a nonsense and is based on harry holmes poorly written interrogation notes . whether that was on purpose or by accident well others can decide .

the relevant segment of his notes can be seen here highlighted in green .
http://www.prayer-man.com/usps/harry-dean-holmes/#lightbox[group]/3/

so lets start with the assertion that Oswald placed himself by accident on the 6TH floor at 12.30 .

" In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of
the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined, saying, "You go on down
and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes."

the above happened at about 11.40 or so . the employees broke early for lunch . they had an elevator race using two elevators . they went and washed up and most went outside for around midday give or take .some LN will say they broke for lunch nearer to 11.50 . this is too have Oswald up there on the 6th nearer to midday so givens could see him .however Oswald was seen down on the 1st floor by several people between 11.45 and midday including by his boss Bill shelly at 11.50 .so contrary to what we are told Oswald left the 6th floor and went down stairs . so the incident bugliosi mentioned was in and around 11.40 am .

no negro employee invited Oswald anywhere . it was merely a HEY ITS BREAK TIME , YOU COMING DOWN WITH US ? .and as we know Oswald did go down .

so above we ascertained that the incident mentioned took place at about 11.40 am , now on to the next part of Bugliosis claim .

"He said before he could finish
whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place" Bugliosi

now wait a minute here , what time was the shooting of JFK at ? well at 12.30 pm .so the Bug has two different events here some 50 minutes apart TOGETHER .

" He said before he could finish
whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "went
downstairs,'" a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one
of their employees. The latter confrontation, of course, refers to Officer Marrion Baker, in Roy
Truly' s presence, talking to Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom within two minutes after the
shooting." Bugliosi

so now we can see that Holmes placed events 50 minutes apart together . Bugliosi knew all to well when these events occurred , and had to have known what i am saying here . yet he still came up with this BS .the Oswald - Baker incident took place at about 12.32 , again some 50 minutes after the staff broke for lunch . so COMPLETELY different events some 50 minutes apart .Oswald never placed himself on the 6th floor at 12.30 .and Bugliosi calls this EVIDENCE ? .

"11:55 a.m., he went up to the sixth floor to get his jacket with cigarettes in it and saw Oswald on the
sixth floor. He said to Oswald, "Boy, are you going downstairs. . .it's near lunchtime." He said
Oswald answered, "No, sir. When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator." " Bugliosi

several people saw Oswald on the 1st floor . norman admitted on film that he saw oswald on the first floor . he remembered because he norman was an order checker and Oswald an order filler , so Oswald brought down an order he had been filling .after that Shelly saw oswald at 11.50 , after that Piper saw and indeed spoke to Oswald on the first floor at midday . after that Carolyn arnold said she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom in a booth eating alone between 12.15 and 12.20 or so . even if we ignore Arnold we have atleast 3 1st floor witnesses who dispute Givens . and by the way Bugliosi omits to mention that the police said Givens would lie for money .again this is what masquerades as evidence .

and you would not be at all biased MR MAY ?  , i think we both know differently dont we ? . i am quite long in the tooth in terms of studying this case and reading JFK threads on such forums as this  . and as such you are no stranger to me . as we might say where i come from I KNOW YOU OF OLD . i am not trying to BS you so if you wouldnt mind please dont try to BS me . but thank you for your reply , it is nothing less than i might expect from one such as you .

There is an aspect of the theory that Oswald acted alone that is often overlooked.
If Oswald acted alone then everyone else working in the TSBD building that day were just everyday working folk going about their daily business, unaware that there was a lone nut in their midst who was going to change history. If Oswald was acting alone there is no reason for any suspicious activity other than that related to the actions of Oswald.
The reality could hardly be any different.
Shelley and Lovelady lie to various investigating authorities, including the Warren Commission, about their movements after the assassination. Seconds after the assassination both men re-enter the TSBD building through the front door and make their way towards the back of the first floor where they area seen by Vicki Adams and Marrion Baker. These movements are reflected in their same-day affidavits but in every subsequent statement they invent a series of movements and timings intended to disguise their actual movements.

As we have seen, Oswald expects Shelley to back him up as his excuse for leaving the TSBD building that day, but is instead thrown under the bus by Shelley.
Shelley is also involved in the incredibly suspicious sequence of events that leads to Oswald being brought to the attention of Fritz. Truly sees some of his men being questioned by the police on the first floor and notices Oswald is not there (it emerges that there are at least three other of 'Truly's boys' who are not being questioned by the police at that time). There is no search for Oswald, Truly simply asks Shelley if he's seen Oswald around. Naturally, Shelley says he hasn't and that's enough for Truly to single out as Oswald as someone who has gone missing and who needs to be immediately reported to the police.

Then we have the late addition to the story of Charles Givens, the man who would change his story for money due to his conviction for drugs. The full sorry saga can be read here - http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens - and, although there is little doubt Givens lied to the Warren Commission, I think this is no more than an example of mundane corruption on behalf of the investigating authorities and is not really connected to the assassination as such.
Unlike the string of lies told by Bonnie Ray Williams. This definitely had something to do with assassination itself. I believe Bonnie Ray saw something in the SN he shouldn't have seen and does everything in his powers to distance himself from being there. In his affidavit there is no mention of the half hour he spent on the 6th floor having his lunch. He leaves the distinct impression he went directly to the fifth floor with Norman and Jarman and was never on the 6th floor. The next day he tells the FBI he was on the 6th floor for no more than 3 minutes. This is a clear lie. Every time he is questioned about it, the time he was on the 6th floor slowly increases - 3,5, 10, 12, 15 and finally 20 minutes - and even this isn't the full amount of time. Not only does he try to downplay how long he was on the 6th, he tries to physically distance himself from the SN while he was up there. SEVEN first responders report seeing his lunch remains in the corner where the SN was, three specifically state that the lunch remains were on top of the boxes that formed the back wall of the SN. However, Gerry Hill moves the remains and it is presumably him who puts them down by a trolley a few windows over from the SN where they are photographed by the Crime Lab. It is clear Williams had his lunch in the SN and is probably the black male Arnold Rowland saw in the SN window. However, Williams testifies that he had his lunch where the remains were photographed and we are supposed to believe he was watching this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the President on a gloriously sunny day through a closed, dirty window.

Then there's the truly bizarre story told by Jack Dougherty. He freely admits he was on the 6th floor just before the shooting and then went down to the 5th floor where he heard a shot from the floor above. He then decides to go down to the first floor for some unknown reason, he never explains. On the first floor he approaches Eddie Piper and asks him if he heard anything and Piper tells him he heard three shots. So Dougherty goes up to the 6th floor to carry on working even though this is the floor he heard the shot coming from!!His account of his movements is just plain strange, as is the way he never has to explain to anyone what he saw when he was on the 6th floor. Never, in any of his statements or his testimony does he have to explain to anyone what he saw on the 6th floor in the minutes after the assassination. Others who were supposed be on the 6th floor, like Givens and Williams, are subject to an intense barrage of questions concerning what they saw while they were up there. But not Jack.

There is so much that is strange and suspicious surrounding the TSBD building and the assassination. If Oswald acted alone it shouldn't be like this, it should be mundane and boring. Fair enough if someone forgets a few details or mixes things up a bit, that's to be expected with a lot of eye-witness testimony. But that's not what we see. The majority of men who worked on the 6th floor that day make up things that never happened. They deliberately distort the reality of events. How can this be the case if these are just ordinary men going about their daily business?

Oswald HAS to bring Shelley in to explain why he left, why he simply took off work. Otherwise what is his explanation for leaving? Again, according to the FBI report he didn't talk to Shelley or get permission from him to leave. Oswald reportedly said that because of what Shelley was saying about the events that he, Oswald, *thought* (his opinion) that no more work would be done and he could leave. That can't be contradicted by Shelley since, again, it was based on what Oswald thought he meant. But Oswald has a problem (several really): if Shelley is right there Oswald can go up and ask him about leaving work. He doesn't have to guess. "Sir, can we go home?" Furthermore, why was Oswald the *only* worker who left? If Shelley is saying that everyone can go home why didn't others leave?

I don't understand this argument that because Shelley could contradict what Oswald said that Oswald wouldn't make the claim. Oswald can simply say: "Well, he's wrong". Oswald said that Frazier was wrong about the curtain rod story. He knew that Frazier could expose that as a lie. But he made the claim anyway and said that Frazier was wrong. And again: the curtain rod story is so preposterous that one has to be little more than an Oswald apologist to believe it. Curtain rods my fanny.

Oswald made a series of demonstrably provable lies: about the rifle, about the BYPs, about where he lived. This idea that he wouldn't have made statements that he knew could be exposed as falsehoods make no sense. It's what guilty people do.

I have to say how impressed I am by your willingness to completely change your position on this from post to post.
Initially you were arguing that there was no documentary evidence that Oswald had even mentioned talking to Shelley during his interrogation. Remember this:

"Dan, question: Where is the evidence that Oswald told the interrogators he talked with Shelley? I think this is a mistaken belief - I used to believe it - that's not supported by the evidence."

Once I corrected you on this your argument morphed into your disbelief that Shelley gave Oswald "explicit permission" to leave. When I corrected you on this your argument has now become that "Oswald HAS to bring Shelley in to explain why he left".
It's almost as if you're willing to say anything to defend your beliefs regardless of the evidence or common sense.
It is most certainly not the case that Oswald HAS to bring Shelley into it. He could say he decided to leave because everything was so chaotic, or he overheard someone saying there was going to be no more work that day, or because he was so upset by what had happened, or because he thought others had already gone home or this or that or a thousand other things.
If Oswald was lying about why he left there is no reason he would bring Shelley into it because it could be so easily checked out and Oswald knew how easily it could be checked out.
If it was a lie, Oswald knew there was no way Shelley was going to back him up. He had absolutely no reason to believe that Shelley would lie to the police to back him up.
The single, sane reason why Oswald would bring Shelley into it is because he fully expected Shelley to back him up.
 
I don't understand this argument that because Shelley could contradict what Oswald said that Oswald wouldn't make the claim.

I'm really surprised you don't understand this argument.
It is a really simple argument and really easy to follow - there is absolutely no reason for Oswald to bring Shelley's name into it if he was lying. There are many other lies he could have told that would not involve giving the authorities a specific name they could check.
This might be the bit you are finding tricky - the reason not to give out somebody's name when you are lying is that this person can then be asked whether or not you are lying and if you are lying they can reveal this fact.
I'm not really sure why this is difficult to understand.

There is no question that Oswald lied through his teeth while he was being questioned.
There can be no doubt that Oswald was caught out in some of those lies. It would have been very interesting to have been there when they slapped one of the BYP's on the desk in front of him.
But this is not the issue - evidence like the BYP's or Frazier's statement about the curtain rods are pieces of evidence that have been collected as part of the investigation and can be used against Oswald to catch him out in his lies.
Telling his interrogators that he went out front with Shelley and had a conversation with him is the very opposite of this - this is evidence that Oswald is giving to his interrogators. Evidence that can easily be checked.
Oswald having to defend himself against evidence that has been collected and is being used against him is one thing, offering up evidence that can easily be checked out is another. They are very different things.

The idea that Oswald willingly offered up a way to catch him out in a lie is a non-starter.
Oswald named Shelley because he expected Shelley to back him up.
He expected Shelley to back him up for one of two reasons that I can see:
1] The incident with Shelley really did happen and Oswald fully expected Shelley to confirm that, but for some reason Shelley decided to lie about it.
2] Shelley was an accomplice and Oswald expected him to give him an alibi, instead Shelley threw him under the bus.