JFK Assassination Forum

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.

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.

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).

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] Their reconstruction shows the bullet passing through 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.

(Full-size of download: 4400x3200 pixels)

Here's the Topo Map with the 0.1% tilt correction. It's possible the aspect ratio was unintentionally altered during scanning; many scanners then had mechanical parts that wore or grew sluggish.

(Full-size of download: 4600x4000 pixels)

Now here's a good-resolution aerial or satellite photo (I had to stitch a few images together). I figured you wanted the North Yard and North Tower.

(Full-size of download: 7300x6000 pixels)

Finally here's my transparent overlay of the satellite photo onto the Topo Map. You can try your own figures. Here's mine. I tilted the aerial composite 14.4% and enlarged it 187.5%. It's all subjective, unfortunately. This particular overlay matches some of the building street-level bases and is close to the curvature of Elm Street.

My overlay method has the aerial short of the north curb on Main and it means the Topo Map got wrong the location of the pergola and the masonry structures by the pool. I wonder if those structures were surveyed on a different day, or rendered from an aerial, and added in later, inadvertently getting it wrong. If my placement of the aerial photo on the Topo Map is correct, then I would go with where the aerial shows the pergola, bridge and North Tower.

There's a trade off that's appropriate for you working with your own set of figures. It would be nice to get the Topo Map to work but you have to be aware of where it's wrong.

Now if you only wanted a generalized map, then the Cutler Plat would do. In my 3D model, I found that sloping Main (beginning at the west edge of Houston and ending just before the bridge entrance) 3.2° worked. The usual slope is said to be 3°, probably rounded.

The Knott Lab 3D scan of the physical Plaza is the modern way to extract figures and angles. You would need a very robust computer just to open that model. It would take years to clean up the extraneous noise in the scan and reduce the file size for home use. So we're left with the 2D approach.