Here are 10 reasons to believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot JFK:

1. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

The ammo that hit Kennedy's head shattered into dozens of tiny fragments (practically particles) and a few larger fragments, deposited at least three fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and left two fragments in the very front of the skull near the right orbit. Oswald allegedly used FMJ bullets, but FMJ bullets will never, ever, ever fragment in this manner.

2. 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.

3. The trajectory of JFK's back wound was slightly upward, both at its entry point and beyond. No sixth-floor gunman could have fired this shot. The only way that a bullet from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then tunneled at an upward angle was if JFK had been leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck, a fact admitted by the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) medical panel (FPP).

4. PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's statements that he didn't shoot anyone and that he was just a patsy indicates he was telling the truth.

5. Three tests of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek, including the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test, found no traces of nitrates, strongly indicating that he did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

The three tests were the Dallas Police Department's diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test. The results of the NAA test were suppressed for years until pried loose by a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg.

We now know that Warren Commission (WC) attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, stating that they provided "no basis for concluding" that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. This damning memo only came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Weisberg.

6.The alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's marksmanship ability. Oswald was not even remotely skilled or experienced enough to have performed the shooting feat that the WC claimed he did. Rifle tests have proven that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.

7. Oswald had no motive for shooting JFK. By all accounts, he admired JFK. In the days leading up to the assassination, Oswald was talking with his wife Marina about getting back together and getting their own apartment.

Many WC defenders claim that Oswald shot JFK to prove to the Cubans and/or the Soviets that he was devoted to the Marxist cause, but Oswald behaved nothing like an ideologically motivated assassin. Instead, he fiercely denied shooting JFK at every opportunity, told his family not to believe the "so-called evidence" against him, and said he was a patsy. In contrast, throughout history, assassins who were motivated by ideology have proudly taken credit for their crimes. Oswald did the opposite.

8. HSCA investigators Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City about two months before the assassination. The committee decided to suppress the explosive Lopez-Hardway report that presented this evidence, but the report was released in redacted form in 1996 and in a less-redacted form in 2003.

9. Anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassination some two months ahead of time. This was revealed by Silvio Odio and  corroborated by her sister Annie in 1964. The HSCA, to its great credit, acknowledged that Silvia Odio's account is credible.

We now know that the WC was aware of Odio's account and knew she was a credible witness. In an internal WC memo, one of the Commission’s attorneys, David Slawson, said Odio was “checked out thoroughly” and that “the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability, and as to her intelligence." Another one of the WC's attorneys, Wesley Liebeler, in another internal memo, expressed doubts about the Commission's rejection of Odio's account, saying "Odio may well be right" and warned that the WC would "look bad if it turns out" she was telling the truth. Nevertheless, the WC rejected Odio's account as "mistaken."

10. When we look at the evidence that supposedly proves Oswald's guilt, we find serious problems with it in virtually every instance. Those few items of evidence that are not fraught with problems are of an indirect nature and do not necessarily prove of his guilt.

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News in November 1969, none other than Dallas police chief Jesse Curry said there was no hard evidence that proved Oswald fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window:

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.

Curry made similar statements in other interviews.

As just one example of the problems with the supposed evidence against Oswald, let's briefly consider the latent palmprint that the Dallas police belatedly claimed to have found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon.

Lt. J. C. Day claimed to have discovered the latent palmprint on the night of the assassination at around 8:00 PM. Yet, he said nothing about the palmprint to the FBI when he handed over the rifle and other evidence to the FBI the next day, and the palmprint was not forwarded to the FBI until seven days later.

Lt. Day said he could still see the palmprint on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even
been processed for prints.

Incredibly, Lt. Day failed to take a single photo of the palmprint, even though he took photos of the worthless prints on the rifle's trigger guard.

When asked to explain this shocking violation of standard police procedure, Lt. Day said he didn't take photos of the palmprint because Chief Curry called him at around 8:30 and told him to stop all work on the rifle because the FBI would finish what he had started. However, by Lt. Day's own admission, he took a photo of the rifle after Chief Curry called him, but still didn't take a photo of the all-important palmprint.

We now know that even the WC had doubts about the palmprint. An FBI memo released years after the WC dissolved reveals that the Commission's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin, told the FBI that there was "serious doubt in the minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source."

We also now know that when the FBI asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement about how he obtained the palmprint, he refused.

These are just some of the problems with the latent palmprint, yet pro-WC books cite the palmprint as strong evidence of Oswald's guilt. For more information on the reasons to doubt the palmprint's value as evidence, see my article https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzWhdO-Ak3nbuxl8vsy62-fpLTBMBvPx/view?usp=sharing]"Was Oswald's Palmprint Planted
on the Alleged Murder Weapon? Some Questions About the Latent Palmprint"[/url].

One of the silliest theories proposed regarding the JFKA.

The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.

Are you for real? I didn't say anyone disputed the windshield was damaged. Can you read?

I said I've never met anyone who has denied that windshield damage can be seen in Altgens 6. It can also be seen in Altgens 7. Good grief, Roy Schaeffer noticed and talked about the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. This has been discussed in many books.

I'm curious: Do you also deny that windshield damage can be seen in a number of Zapruder frames before Z233, especially in the MPI large-format version of the film?

So it's looking like the LNer tactic is going to be to just deny that Altgens 6 and pre-Z233 Zapruder frames show windshield damage. You're gonna say, "I don't see that!" Well, no one can force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.

The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.

Here's what Dr. Mantik says about the windshield damage in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis:

On Friday, November 20, 2009, I viewed the first generation, large format MPI transparencies of the Zapruder film at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas with Sydney Wilkinson, a Zapruder film expert. The MPI transparencies had incredible clarity. The first sign of windshield damage appears at Z-193. This is uncannily consistent with the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) conclusion that JFK was hit in the throat at Z-190. Quite naïvely, as I examined the MPI images, I had forgotten this NPIC conclusion, so my observations were quite unbiased.

In these MPI images, this windshield site is obscured during Z-203 to Z-214, but the damage is visible (consistently at the same site) in Z-215 to Z-232. It is especially obvious in Z-229 and Z-230, but it is more difficult to see after Z-232. The windshield damage in the Zapruder frames appears at the same site as seen in Altgens 6 and Altgens 7. Roy’s description is also consistent with this.

I would emphasize that if the shot had occurred earlier than Z-222 (i.e., that was Roy’s selected frame), then a windshield transit would have been more likely—because the windshield elevation would have been higher. The Altgens 6 photograph (Figure 5.4) was taken at about Z-255, just thirty frames after Z-225 (i.e., less than two seconds later); it shows windshield damage consistent with a South Knoll shot. Shaeffer was the first to notice this windshield damage that lay very near JFK’s left ear (in the Altgens 6—see Figure 5.4). He observed that “the small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole.”   

Of note, the official view is that the windshield damage was caused by a fragment from the headshot; that is nonsense, of course—because the headshots occurred after Z-300, far too late to affect the windshield at Z-255.

Figure 5.4: Altgens 6. The circle highlights damage to the windshield. The damage to the windshield can also be seen in Altgens 7 (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), taken as the limousine sped toward the Triple Overpass. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291)

What [Fetzer collaborator] Schaeffer noticed is that, slightly to the right and barely above the upper-right-hand comer of the center-mounted rear-view mirror (looking toward the vehicle as it is displayed in the photograph), there is something that has the appearance of a small spiral nebula at exactly the location the President's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by a white image. The small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole. This is quite different from the windshield that the Secret Service produced, which shows a star-like configuration.

Groden (1993), p. 36, has published photos of both, side by side.

Taken by Ike Altgens just after the first four [sic!] shots, the photo (right) shows the windshield of the President's car with no sign of damage from gunfire.

The feature in the photograph that Fetzer believes is a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield he describes as “a small spiral nebula.” Good copies of the Altgens photo show it to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255.

Since the late 1960s, it has been well-known that Altgens #6 (taken at Z 255) shows an undamaged windshield while Altgens #7 (taken seconds later) shows damage to the windshield. Hence, whatever damage was incurred by the windshield it was incurred during this time interval. More importantly, the location and character of damage to the windshield showing in Altgens #7 matches what we see in a later photo of the windshield taken during Frazier’s examination. A photo of the limousine taken at Parkland Hospital may also show damage to the windshield at the location apparent in the Altgens and FBI photos.