One, I guess it has just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting.
Two, I guess it has also just never occurred to you that the two limo fragments could not have come from the head-shot ammo, given the known, established fact of forensic science that FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment into dozens of tiny fragments, much less do so while also depositing several fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon entry and while also magically somehow depositing two fragments at the opposite end of the skull with no other fragments or particles anywhere near them.
If only you had the power to make things fact simply by asserting them.
Three, obviously, you don't care about all the problems with the chain of custody of the bullet fragments allegedly found in the limo and in JFK's body.
The good old chain-of-custody excuse. A long time favorite of the CT gang to wish away damning evidence against Oswald.
No, it's not. You haven't even read the evidence under discussion. You have no idea what it says. You constantly denounce evidence you haven't even studied.
Things don't become evidence simply because you assert them. I will concede that you can invent excuses to dismiss evidence a lot faster than I can refute them.
Brennan's belated, coerced "identification" of Oswald as the man he saw in the window is a joke. Most prosecutors would not dare use such a doubtful, problematic identification in a trial.
Brennan's ID of Oswald is probably one of the least compelling pieces of evidence against him. By itself, it wouldn't be compelling at all. The fact that he eventually IDed the guy who owned the rifle that was the murder weapon is what gives his belated ID credibility. The simple fact is nobody else saw Oswald anywhere else at the time of the shooting which refutes your BS claim that "Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting."
You must know you're being deceptive here. None of this actually directly addresses what I said. Let me repeat what I wrote:
Multiple eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. We now know that the WC was aware of strong eyewitness evidence that Oswald did not come down the stairs after the shooting but suppressed it. [/quote]
Another fine example of things you claim to know that simply aren't true. No witness precludes Oswald from coming down the back stairs to the second floor where he ducked into the lunchroom to avoid running into Baker and Truly coming up the stairs.
Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first or second floor no more than 5-10 minutes before JFK's motorcade was scheduled to drive through Dealey Plaza.
That doesn't preclude Oswald from being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. It wouldn't take 5-10 minutes for Oswald to reach the 6th floor from where Arnold thought she saw Oswald.
Sarah Stanton's family said Sarah told them she saw and spoke with Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD when the motorcade drove through the plaza.
Hearsay accounts are not evidence for good reason. Amazing how nobody else saw Oswald on the front steps. Even Oswald never said he was on the front stops watching the motorcade.
Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and the Stroud memo make it clear that Oswald could not have come down the stairs in time to make it to the second-floor lunchroom to encounter Officer Baker there, proving that Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
Just how did they make that clear?
This myth was debunked decades ago. Even the HSCA FPP put the back wound below the throat wound. How can you not know such basic stuff?
The HSCA FPP was speaking of the anatomical position. JFK was not in the anatomical position when he was shot. Are we supposed to believe the FPP refuted their own finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. The Secret Service recreation using substitutes for JFK and JBC clearly showed the back wound was higher than the throat wound and was in direct alignment with the entry wound on JBC's back on a downward trajectory.
The rear JFK clothing holes alone are hard physical evidence that the back wound was well below the throat wound.
Total BS.
One, I've already done this, several times.
Why?
Two, I've pointed out to you several times that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established for an absolute fact through prolonged and extensive probing that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, that autopsy technicians around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as exit point for the back wound, and that we now know from Dr. Ebersole's released HSCA testimony that Humes knew about the throat wound before the end of the autopsy but then falsely claimed he knew nothing about it until the following morning.
Ignoring these facts won't make them go away.
This is why amateurs such as yourself should not delve into areas which require substantial expertise. The fact that a probe would not pass through the bullet channel is not proof that the bullet only penetrated a few inches, which is ludicrous on the surface. It fails to take into account JFK's position on the autopsy table was different from when he was shot in the back. It fails to take into account rigor mortis. Finck explained this in the Clay Shaw trial:
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Three, you need to explain how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have struck JFK at an upward trajectory and tunneled upward from there. Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the FPP majority, admitted in 1975 that the back-wound bullet "penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction" and that the bullet "traveled upwards within the body." He admitted this in his report to the Rockefeller Commission, adding that there was "no doubt" about it:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)
The HSCA FPP likewise noted this exact same fact: that the bullet struck and tunneled at an upward angle.
More evidence why amateurs like you should not try to analyze the medical evidence. The FPP made the following conclusion regarding the shots that hit JFK:
"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. 1 The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front."
Their finding that the bullet entered JFK's back on an upward trajectory was speaking in relation to the angle of his back, not upward from horizontal. Do you honestly believe if they thought the bullet went into JFK's back on an upward trajectory from horizontal would have reached the conclusion which I quoted above.
Is this a serious question? Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Did you forget our discussion about O'Toole's PSE/VSA analysis of Oswald's statements to newsmen while he was in police custody? How could you not remember that the PSE/VSA analysis was done from TV footage of Oswald's statements to reporters?
A voice stress analysis is not a polygraph. Oswald was not taking a polygraph when he made the statement that he didn't shoot anyone. A polygraph measures stress which is an indication of deceit. Since Oswald knew he was not being tested when he made that statement, there was no reason for him to feel stress. A polygraph even under controlled circumstances is not proof positive as to whether or not a person is being truthful.
AI describes voice stress analysis as follows:
"Voice stress analysis (VSA) is a technique that attempts to detect stress or deception by analyzing subtle changes in a person’s voice,
though its reliability is highly disputed. (Emphasis mine)
Voice stress analysis (VSA) is a method that examines the acoustic properties of speech, including pitch variation, micro-tremors, and vocal cord irregularities, to infer emotional stress, which is sometimes interpreted as an indicator of deception
The underlying premise is that when a person lies or
anticipates scrutiny (Emphasis mine), the autonomic nervous system triggers involuntary physiological changes, affecting the muscles controlling the voice.
VSA systems, such as the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), record these vocal signals and display patterns for an examiner to interpret, often comparing responses to control questions versus critical questions"
Since Oswald had no reason to believe his statements were being electronically scrutinized, there would have been nothing to induce stress.
You must know this is both misleading and irrelevant. That agent's paraffin cast was not subjected to the super-sensitive NAA test, and he was not part of the control test that the FBI conducted to determine the accuracy of the Oakridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast.
So you have no way of knowing whether the FBI agent would have tested positive had he been given the more stringent tests. As is your standard, you simply assume what you cannot prove.
The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found the NAA test to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces.
The NAA test did find the presence of both barium and antimony on Oswald's cheek cast. From Appendix 10 of the WCR
"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface."
So while Oswald's NAA testing was positive for barium and antimony, the WC put no significance on the test proving Oswald did or did not fire a rifle since such tests can produce false positives.
Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).
So did Oswald's NAA test.
I pointed out these facts to you quite recently. Did you just forget them?
Apparently, you've never read the WCR section on paraffin testing.
This kind of deception and omission is why you have no credibility. People who read our previous exchanges on this issue are going to wonder how you could make these statements with a straight face.
You are the last person on this forum who should be casting aspersions on other people's credibility with the silly things you have claimed are "proof".
Are you ever going to explain why the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, using the alleged murder weapon itself, utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up?
Why should I explain something that didn't duplicate the conditions Oswald killed JFK from.
Oh my! Can you retroactively read minds or something? How do you know Oswald had a motive? What is your basis for adamantly declaring "Oswald had a motive"? Answer: Your circular reasoning that since you believe Oswald shot JFK, you infer that he therefore must have had a motive.
How do I know Oswald had a motive? His actions speak to that. He made a special trip on Thursday to fetch his rifle. He had made a bag to conceal that rifle when he went to work on Friday morning. He found a secluded spot in the TSBD and stacked boxes by the window to form a rifle rest. All of the actions indicate malice aforethought. That means he had a motive for what he did, even if that motive is unknown.
Ask any detective or prosecutor about the importance of establishing a motive in any complex or strongly contested case.
Important is not the same as necessary. Oswald would have easily been convicted at trial even without his motive ever being established.
This is juvenile silliness. You are embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical illogic. Even Lance Payette has taken you to task for this silly argument.
Lance seems to want to argue for the sake of arguing. When responding to a CT, he wears his LN cap. When responding to an LN, he takes the CT position. He's here just to play word games. He never gave a cogent answer to this conundrum and apparently you don't have one either. You call it a silly argument, yet you cannot point why it is silly.
How does your backward theorizing explain the Lopez-Hardway evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City? How does it explain Silvia Odio's account, which was corroborated by her sister Annie?
I don't have to explain things that are not established facts.
So why do you suppose Dallas police chief Jesse Curry told the Dallas Morning News in November 1969 that there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window? Let's read his statement again:
We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.
I notice you said nothing about Curry's statement.
I never thought Curry was the sharpest knife in the drawer. If the forensic evidence of Oswald's guilt didn't convince him, he couldn't have been too bright. The other possibility is that he was still bitter that the FBI had taken over the case from his department and he was resentful. His bitterness came through when he made the announcement that the FBI was taking charge. It would have been the biggest case he ever handled as police chief and it was taken from him.
Why did Norman Mailer state that he believed he could have gotten Oswald acquitted if he had been Oswald's lawyer in a trial?
Do you seriously consider that evidence of Oswald's innocence? Norman Mailer had a reputation as a blowhard. This is a fine example.
I also notice you said nothing about the fact that the belated DPD claim that Oswald's palmprint had been found on the barrel of the rifle was so suspicious that even the WC doubted the palmprint's origin.
One more claim you have made that isn't true. For someone who is so critical of the WCR, you seem to be quite ignorant of what it has to say. Here is what it said about the palmprint found on the barrel of Oswald's rifle, from Chapter 4, page 123, continuing on to page 124..
"On November 22, however, before surrendering possession of the rifle to the FBI Laboratory, Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department had "lifted" a palmprint from the underside of the gun barrel "near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the woodstock when I took the woodstock loose." 52 "Lifting" a print involves the use of adhesive material to remove the fingerprint powder which adheres to the original print. In this way the powdered impression is actually removed from the object.53 The lifting had been so complete in this case that there was no trace of the print on the rifle itself when it was examined by Latona. Nor was there any indication that the lift had been performed. 54 Day, on the other hand, believed that sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel, because he did not release the lifted print until November 26, when he received instructions to send "everything that we had" to the FBI.55 The print arrived in the FBI Laboratory in Washington on November 29, mounted on a card on which Lieutenant Day had written the words "off underside gun barrel near end of grip C2766." 56 The print's positive identity as having been lifted from the rifle was confirmed by FBI Laboratory tests which established that the adhesive material bearing the print also bore impressions of the same irregularities that appeared on the barrel of the rifle. 57
Latona testified that this palmprint was the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.58 At the request of the Commission, Arthur Mandella, fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department, conducted an independent examination and also determined that this was the right palmprint of Oswald.59 Latona's findings were also confirmed by Ronald G. Wittmus, another FBI fingerprint
Page 124
expert.60 In the opinion of these experts, it was not possible to estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the rifle and the date of the lift.61
Experts testifying before the Commission agreed that palmprints are as unique as fingerprints for purposes of establishing identification.62 Oswald's palmprint on the underside of the barrel demonstrates that he handled the rifle when it was disassembled. A palmprint could not be placed on this portion of the rifle, when assembled, because the wooden foregrip covers the barrel at this point.63 The print is additional proof that the rifle was in Oswald's possession."
Nowhere does the WCR express doubt about the authenticity of the palm print.
It has occurred to me that many of the points you raised were addressed by the WCR before anybody raised their objections. That's why I question whether you have much knowledge at all about what is in the WCR. You and your CT cohorts have raised and repeated so many red herring objections to the WCR over the years that I don't think most of you can discern fact from fiction anymore.
Recent Posts