Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (35 page)

Unfortunately for the credibility of the Warren Commission, we can be almost certain that this reversal of judgment must be incorrect, based on the extraordinarily unlikely possibility that basic medical findings arrived at over a two-month period can plausibly be about-faced; in other words, that a team of medical professionals erroneously reported to the FBI that a bullet entered the
back
and did
not
transit the President’s body when in fact it really entered the
neck
and
did
transit the President’s body. A “mistake” — in this author’s and his wife’s and his father’s humble opinion — which would be essentially
impossible
for a medical professional to make (the author’s wife is a Physician’s Assistant with over thirty years experience, the author’s father is a retired podiatric surgeon with over forty-five years experience). Anyone who happens to disagree with this assessment is urged to consult with a forensic pathologist near them.

Based on this revised finding, we can be
absolutely certain
that our previous potential hypothesis that we could have 100% confidence in the judgments of both the FBI and the Warren Commission was
false,
since they have transmitted information which is demonstrably
incompatible
. Someone, somewhere, is either grossly incompetent or is not telling the truth, if not both.

Clearly, we have discovered even at this very early stage some confidence-rattling inconsistencies in what has been reported as “the” evidence, and it is in fact inconsistencies like these which have rendered the Kennedy case very much a live issue. Obviously, 4 bullets would demonstrate a conspiracy, and the failure of the Warren Commission to admit to evidence clearly pointing to more bullets than 3 results from flaws in their analysis and investigation, flaws which were recognized by the
House Select Committee On Assassinations
in their 1979 report (HSCA Report 97):
10

According to a memo from acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to Press Secretary Bill Moyers on November 25, 1963, the whole notion of a conspiracy was to be quashed from the outset; that is to say, the lone assassin
hypothesis
was, at the very beginning of these “investigations,” elevated to the status of a
conclusion
which no evidence found dare contradict (“Memo from Katzenbach to Moyers
,
”November 25, 1963):
11

Obviously, a memo like this turns an
investigation
(a search for truth with no pre-established conclusions) into an
inquisition
(transmitting only that information consistent with a pre-conceived conclusion which itself may be inconsistent with the facts).

But
why
an inquisition instead of an investigation? As acting Attorney General, why would Katzenbach
want
to cut off speculation about Oswald’s motivation? Wouldn’t Oswald’s potential involvement in a conspiracy be something that the American people would want to know about, and the discovery of this involvement, if in fact it was the case, the
duty
of the American government to discover? Let’s face it, if there
were
people involved in a conspiracy, then they would have been just as guilty of the crime of murder as Oswald was (if in fact he was), and to cut off speculation about a conspiracy would be to let the murderers of President Kennedy go free!

When you analyze it, you realize that Katzenbach
could not possibly know
on November 25, only three days after the assassination, when virtually no investigation to speak of had been completed, that a conspiracy was nonexistent! So, right out-of-the-box the searchers for truth were improperly put on a short leash by the people in charge (Katzenbach, most likely acting under orders from his boss, President Johnson), and the wheels of the great machinery of deception began their inexorable motion forward.

Given the serious gaps in the investigatory skills of the Warren Commission and the FBI noted by the
HSCA
Report
, gaps motivated by the memo, memos like his memo, and the inevitable subterranean conversations much like his memo, assassination researchers over the last decades have stepped into the void and uncovered literally thousands of pages of evidence contradicting the primary conclusions of the Warren Commission. With reference to the element that only three shots were fired, the evidence to the contrary points to these following conclusions:

1. The evidence indicates that only
   two
   empty shells were discovered at the Texas School Book Depository, not
   three
   ; with only two empty shells, Oswald could not have fired three shots, rendering any controversy ostensibly raised by the following points moot.
   
2. The available audio evidence (and analysis) provides no support for the conclusion that exactly 3 bullets were fired.
   
3. There was evidence of more bullets
   found
   than could be accounted for by only three separate shots.
   
4. There was evidence of more bullets
   fired
   than those ostensibly fired from the Texas School Book Depository.
   
5. There was evidence of
   multiple
   shots to the head of President Kennedy, not just one shot.
   
6. There was evidence of
   multiple
   shots to Governor Connally, not just one shot.
   
7. As the FBI reported, the President was shot in the back, not in the neck, with a bullet that did not pass through President Kennedy’s body, and therefore there were at least three separate hits to President Kennedy and Governor Connally, with at least one missed shot making at least four bullets fired.
   

Let us cover these in order, and as we do so, discover their impact on the confidence level of our element.

Reason 1: The evidence indicates that only two empty shells were discovered at the Texas School Book Depository, not three; with only two empty shells, Oswald could not have fired three shots, rendering any controversy ostensibly raised by the following points moot.

One of the more intriguing observations noted by the Kennedy assassination research community over the years is that the primary assumption of the Warren Commission that
three
empty shells were found at the Texas School Book Depository turns out to have an overwhelming (and ultimately dispositive) amount of contradictory evidence. But more than that, when you follow the threads emanating from this evidence, you find that you will be lead to some well-hidden skeletons in the closet via a route of twist and turns the most hack Hollywood screenwriter would have been embarrassed to pen.

Unintentional
twist and turns, of course, functionally identical to what is referred to in Hollywood as a
continuity error
.
12

What is a continuity error? It is an error in a film whose fundamental flaw leads to the suspension of the suspension of disbelief we normally have when watching a movie. So if you ever “got into” a film, the continuity error takes you right out of it.

A very simple example of a continuity error is the following: man and woman are having dinner in restaurant. Alternating close-ups of both. Shot 1: Man
wearing
tie, asks woman a question. Shot 2: woman answers question. Shot 3: man
not wearing
tie, asks a follow-up question. Shot 4: woman answers second question. Shot 5: man
wearing
tie, appears satisfied with answer.

Can you
make up a story
to explain how the tie disappeared in the third shot? Sure you can! “Between the questions and the answers, the man with the tie took it off really fast, then he put it back on.” And in the history of the cinema, many fans who could not stand the thought of their star directors making such elemental mistakes would invent such stories.

But at the end of the day, we all know that the story is false, just as ridiculous as the error, and the bottom line is that the continuity error is just what it appears to be: an indication that you are just watching a movie, and not a particularly well-made one at that.

As we go through the testimony, you will see more than one example of the Warren Commission version of the continuity error. And as you find them, you may find yourself asking the question “am I viewing
reality
, or am I viewing a
projection
of what is claimed to be reality?”

We can start with the witness reports, beginning with the testimony of Howard Brennan, who in another context was one of the Commission’s star witnesses; it is worth noting that this star witness nonetheless provided a statement which contradicted one of the Commission’s central propositions. According to Brennan, only
two
shots were fired, not
three
(3 H 154):
13

Confirmation of the Brennan statement comes from Bonnie Ray Williams, who was located directly below the sixth floor at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository, and obviously was in a position to hear shots from the floor immediately above. The statement below is from Williams’ affidavit of November 22 (Ce 2003; 24 H 229):
14