New: "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald"

[Michael T. Griffith]

For those who might be interested, I have uploaded a substantially revised and expanded version of my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.".

The new edition examines the following subjects:

-- Oswald and the alleged murder weapon.

-- The ordering of the alleged murder weapon.

-- The paper bag, the blanket, and the fingerprints on some of the boxes near the sixth-floor window.

-- The shirt fibers found on the Carcano rifle.

-- The trigger-guard fingerprints and the dubious claim of Scalice and Powdrill that they are Oswald's prints.

-- The suspicious latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly claimed he saw and lifted.

-- The alleged ballistic evidence, especially CE 543 (the dented shell).

-- Scientific evidence that Oswald did not shoot JFK.

-- The disclosure of the results of the NAA testing of the paraffin cast made of Oswald's right cheek.

-- PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's declarations of innocence, and a response to DeGrilla's misleading attack on the PSE evidence.

-- Indications of fraud in the backyard rifle photos.

-- Oswald's marksmanship in the Marine Corps.

-- What Oswald's former Marine colleagues and fellow Minsk gun club members said about his shooting ability (that he was a "poor" and "extremely poor" shot).

-- The alleged lone-gunman shooting feat and the rifle tests done by the WC, CBS, and the HSCA.

-- Oswald's whereabouts before, during, and immediately after the shooting.

-- Witnesses and the police lineups.

-- Howard Brennan.

-- Prayer Man.

-- The single-bullet theory (SBT).

-- Guinn's NAA and the SBT.

-- Problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.

-- The wedding ring and cash allegedly left on Marina Oswald’s nightstand on the morning of the assassination.

-- Oswald's post-assassination actions from 12:30 to 1:15.

-- The claim that Oswald snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying.

-- The arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre.

-- The Robert Baer team's research.

-- Howard Donahue's research.

[John Corbett]

For those who might be interested, I have uploaded a substantially revised and expanded version of my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.".

The new edition examines the following subjects:

-- Oswald and the alleged murder weapon.

-- The ordering of the alleged murder weapon.

-- The paper bag, the blanket, and the fingerprints on some of the boxes near the sixth-floor window.

-- The shirt fibers found on the Carcano rifle.

-- The trigger-guard fingerprints and the dubious claim of Scalice and Powdrill that they are Oswald's prints.

-- The suspicious latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly claimed he saw and lifted.

-- The alleged ballistic evidence, especially CE 543 (the dented shell).

-- Scientific evidence that Oswald did not shoot JFK.

-- The disclosure of the results of the NAA testing of the paraffin cast made of Oswald's right cheek.

-- PSE polygraph analysis of Oswald's declarations of innocence, and a response to DeGrilla's misleading attack on the PSE evidence.

-- Indications of fraud in the backyard rifle photos.

-- Oswald's marksmanship in the Marine Corps.

-- What Oswald's former Marine colleagues and fellow Minsk gun club members said about his shooting ability (that he was a "poor" and "extremely poor" shot).

-- The alleged lone-gunman shooting feat and the rifle tests done by the WC, CBS, and the HSCA.

-- Oswald's whereabouts before, during, and immediately after the shooting.

-- Witnesses and the police lineups.

-- Howard Brennan.

-- Prayer Man.

-- The single-bullet theory (SBT).

-- Guinn's NAA and the SBT.

-- Problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting.

-- The wedding ring and cash allegedly left on Marina Oswald’s nightstand on the morning of the assassination.

-- Oswald's post-assassination actions from 12:30 to 1:15.

-- The claim that Oswald snuck into the Texas Theatre without paying.

-- The arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre.

-- The Robert Baer team's research.

-- Howard Donahue's research.

Your entire article is nothing more than a litany of excuses for dismissing all that damning evidence against Oswald. If your excuses carried any weight, you should be able to put together a plausible alternative narrative that takes into account all that evidence including your pathetic excuses. We both know that no such plausible alternative narrative is possible or somebody would have come up with one by now. It's been almost 63 years since the assassination and no one has come close to developing a scenario that explains the entire body of evidence. CTs are in the business of explaining away the evidence as your article demonstrates.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Your entire article is nothing more than a litany of excuses for dismissing all that damning evidence against Oswald. If your excuses carried any weight, you should be able to put together a plausible alternative narrative that takes into account all that evidence including your pathetic excuses. We both know that no such plausible alternative narrative is possible or somebody would have come up with one by now. It's been almost 63 years since the assassination and no one has come close to developing a scenario that explains the entire body of evidence. CTs are in the business of explaining away the evidence as your article demonstrates.

Uh-huh. You bet. IOW, your scenario has been debunked by physical evidence, by scientific evidence, by rifle tests, by reenactments, and by numerous released documents, but it must still be true because no one has presented an alternative scenario that you are willing to accept. That's what you're saying.

How about if you write an article that responds to the points and evidence presented in my article? Hey? Oh, but in order to do that, you'd have to actually read my article.

[John Corbett]

Uh-huh. You bet. IOW, your scenario has been debunked by physical evidence, by scientific evidence, by rifle tests, by reenactments, and by numerous released documents, but it must still be true because no one has presented an alternative scenario that you are willing to accept. That's what you're saying.

How about if you write an article that responds to the points and evidence presented in my article? Hey? Oh, but in order to do that, you'd have to actually read my article.

What you call my scenario is the WCR and it remains the only complete scenario ever presented. You've never presented one nor has any other CT. All you can do is present lame excuses for not accepting any of the evidence that clearly indicates Oswald was the assassin. The WCR wins by default.