An amazingly stupid claim given that a fragmented FMJ bullet was found on the floor of the limo that had two pieces which were positively matched to Oswald's rifle.
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.
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.
Pure BS.
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.
The only person who said he saw Oswald at the time of the shooting was Howard Brennan and he saw him shooting the rifle.
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.
There are no witnesses who said they saw Oswald elsewhere at the time of the shooting. There is no one who gives Oswald an alibi.
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.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.
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.
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.
More BS. The entry wound on the back was higher than the exit wound in the front.
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 rear JFK clothing holes alone are hard physical evidence that the back wound was well below the throat wound.
If you think otherwise, tell us where you think the shot that hit JFK in the back was fired from, your evidence that supports that shot, and where you think that bullet went.
One, I've already done this, several times.
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.
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.
Oswald never took a polygraph. Do you just type things that pop into your head?
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?
An FBI agent fired Oswald's rifle and then took a paraffin test on his right cheek. He too tested negative, proving the Carcano could be fired without leaving nitrates on the shooter's cheek. This was explained in the WCR. Have you ever read it?
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.
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.
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).
I pointed out these facts to you quite recently. Did you just forget them?
Repeating a lie thousands of times over decades will not make it come true. Oswald was capable of consistently hitting a target at ranges of 200 yards and more in order to twice qualify by USMC standards. That was without the aid of a scope. When he shot JFK, his longest shot was only 88 yards and was aided by a scope.
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.
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?
Oswald had a motive. He just didn't tell anybody what it was. The fact that his motive can't be proven doesn't mean he didn't have one. Tell us how that proves Oswald did not shoot JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963.
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.
Ask any detective or prosecutor about the importance of establishing a motive in any complex or strongly contested case.
Tell us how those Cubans knew two months in advance that JFK's motorcade would be routed right past Oswald's workplace. It would have been pretty silly to try to frame Oswald without knowing that?
This is juvenile silliness. You are embarrassing yourself with such nonsensical illogic. Even Lance Payette has taken you to task for this silly argument.
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?
Indirect my aching ass. We don't find serious problems with the evidence. Only dedicated Oswald deniers such as yourself reach for any excuse imaginable to dismiss each and every piece of conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt. The is no universe where the body of evidence could point to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.
Duncan should retitle this thread, 10 Reasons to Laugh at Michael T. Griffith. Not that we needed more reasons to do that.
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.
Why did Norman Mailer state that he believed he could have gotten Oswald acquitted if he had been Oswald's lawyer in a trial?
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.