JFK Assassination Forum

No one with a truly open mind could ever turn their nose up at all the evidence that points to LHO’s guilt and then turn around and conclude that Bill Shelly was involved simply because LHO mentioned Shelly’s name in one of his lies.

no one with a truly open mind would summarily dismiss a raft of first hand witnesses calling them liars , nuts , fame seekers or money grabbers , but as we have seen LN do so with alarming regularity .some times citing a witness one day because what the witness said suits their argument , while attacking that same witness another day because now what they say does not suit .

as an example Earlene roberts .this woman must be 100% relied upon when she says Oswald arrived home and spoke about him wearing a zipper jacket etc . but when she says she hears / sees a police car outside she becomes completely unreliable and in fact ive seen her called a liar (that she invented this ) , when she says Oswald stood at the bus stop that must be ignored . in fact i have seen very well known LN seriously question her eyesight in effect saying her eyesight was in a very bad way . i would say in my many years ive never known an LN that was truly open minded .so for LN to criticize others in regards open mindedness is well its laughable .

There's lot of hype about the Knott Lab laser reconstruction but I can't find an independent analysis or critique of it anywhere.
The pic below shows the culmination of the reconstruction and illustrates their fundamental claim, that the bullet passing through JFK can't be lined up with JBC:



The green line shows the trajectory of the bullet from the SN.
The red line shows the trajectory of the bullet passing through JBC.
Two issues spring out immediately:
1] The Knott reconstruction shows the bullet passing through JFK and hitting JBC (green line). It shows the bullet hitting JBC about 10 inches away from where it should be. The question is - what happened to the bullet they show hitting JBC? We know he wasn't hit in the position they are showing, so what happened to this bullet?
2] The red line, showing the trajectory of the bullet through JBC, seems to be showing that JBC was shot by JFK!! Is that the revolutionary new theory Knott are presenting? It is beyond obvious that their reconstruction shows the bullet that hits JBC in the back MUST pass through JFK first. How do they explain this?

Knott Laboratory don't seem to have taken reality into account. They haven't taken into account that the Z-film shows both men reacting at exactly the same moment. If there were two different bullets, as Knott claims, then JFK must have shot JBC as it is IMPOSSIBLE for a bullet to hit JBC in the back without going through JFK first.
On top of this, their reconstruction shows the moment at z225. By z223 the bullet has passed through both men, crushing JBC's rib on the way through. While this does not really affect the position of JFK (as the bullet passes straight through soft tissue), it radically affects the position of JBC by z225 as his body is responding to the instantaneous physical reaction of the bullet against bone. The right side of his body is thrust forward instantaneously and has twisted to a significant degree by z225.

Below is a still from the Knott reconstruction and it shows that JFK and JBC are sat pretty much one behind the other.



This is simply not the case. JBC was sat far more inboard than this reconstruction shows. The pic taken by Dave Powers demonstrates this clearly.




I'm no image analyst but there seems to be lots of issues with the Knott reconstruction and I don't see where they've had to answer any difficult questions about it.

You seem to be starting with the assumption that the SBT is correct and occurred about z225 and criticizing Knott for disagreeing with you.

Knott Labs took all the physical evidence and made an accurate model not only of Dealey Plaza, but of the car and its position and direction on the street at each frame.  They then determined the trajectory to see if a shot from the SN could possibly have gone through both men as the SBT says.  They conclude that, based on the physical evidence, position and direction of the car and the distances between the two men as they were seated, that JBC would have to have been in the position shown at z225 and concluded that the path would have struck JBC farther left than he was actually struck:

So they conclude that the SBT could not have occurred at z225 according to the trajectory from the SN through JFK unless JBC was seated where they show.  So they tried it at z210 to see if it worked.  And it did not at z210 either.

I believe that they have mis-labelled the z210 and z225 trajectory images because the position of JBC in the right frame labelled Z225 has him turned to the right side, which is not the position that JBC was in at z225.  Rather that was the position before he disappeared behind the sign.  The position shown in the frame labelled Z210 has him facing forward, as he was in z225 but not z210:

Oswald had just assassinated the president and left his rifle at the crime scene and you are quibbling about a small lie that he told to explain why he left?  That's what you find "weird" in this scenario?  Oswald's problem was that he was guilty.  He knew that.  What else was he going to do?  He had no good explanation for fleeing the scene without permission or even pausing to ascertain what was going on.  So he lies.  Let the police figure it out as he stated.  Oswald knew he wasn't getting away with this crime.  He was just making life difficult for the authorities as a lifelong malcontent.   Here's a better question.  Why do you think Oswald would lie about this if he was innocent since we know he didn't talk to Shelley?  If anything, this lie is further proof of guilt rather than innocence or whatever you are implying here.

This! (Bolded). Whichever way one turns, one ends up at Oswald being the sole guilty party (in the physical events that day).

I'm surprised someone hasn't turned up to 'LOL' each of those completely accurate Bugliosi points. Naming no names.

"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 .