Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (52 page)

And so, I have to give a very, very special thanks to the following people who have been busy manning the fog machines which provide the smoke screen on which the Wall is projected, and who have spooled up the projectors with their specially created film:

Vincent Bugliosi, for
Reclaiming History
, a masterpiece of sophistry and illusion;

Stephen King, for
11/22/63
, whose work of fiction injected the Trojan horse that “Oswald did it” into the minds of millions of Americans;

numerous professors in history departments across America whose job it is to put their stamp of approval on the “official” version of history, certifying it as authentic, so that alternative narratives of history are consequently seen as
inauthentic
;

the editors of the Lee Harvey Oswald article in
Wikipedia
, who, using the official version of history as their cover, disclaim any responsibility to investigate the truth and rely instead on this “official” view, allowing them to steadfastly remove any counter-evidence to the main thesis of their article that Oswald was the lone assassin, deleting external references to contrary websites, contrary evidence, books on the topic, etc.;

John McAdams of Marquette University, who more than any other single individual has made sure that public perceptions of what occurred are seen through his distorted lens, producing the illusion that those who find evidence of conspiracy into the assassination of President Kennedy are “crazy,” and finally,

the editors of the search algorithm at
Google
, who make sure that the vast majority of searches related to the Kennedy assassination are pointed at McAdams’ website.

Thank you, thank you all . . . I think you really like me!”

And a big “thank YOU” to you too, Carl, for sharing your responsibility for that award with such generosity!!!

Yes, it is no exaggeration to say that we have a massive black hole for the legitimacy of CE 543, and therefore the element that exactly 3 bullets were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, not to mention a massive black hole for any elements in Proposition Two related to the authenticity of the shells in the possession of the Warren Commission.

The probability that at the very least CE 543 would be seen as inadmissible evidence perhaps led to the backpedaling in the paragraph below authored by the Warren Commission, where they themselves indicated a shaky confidence in their own element: “Did we say
three
shots? Well, it
might’ve
been
two
. Who’s counting?” (WR 110):
68

Now, who would have thought that Neil Simon would take a break from writing
The Odd Couple
to moonlight for the Warren Commission? “It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle . . .”. An idea inherently ludicrous, if true, it would make a mockery of all the evidence the Warren Commission claimed to exist that three shots were heard, creating the Warren Commission version of the famous Zen koan: “if an empty shell is fired, does it make a sound?” How could
three
shots be heard when
two
shots were fired? Echoes? No, echoes come in pairs, so observers would have heard
four
shots, not
three
. Furthermore, as we will see in subsequent chapters, the amount of damage that was done in the Presidential limousine and on the surrounding environment could not possibly be explained by two bullets. And what thoughts could possibly have gone through Oswald’s mind as he was loading that
empty shell
(or blank) in the rifle? Would that really be the act of a man with an intent to kill the President?

When the Warren Commission postulates the humorous scenario that Oswald would bring an empty shell to the assassination, we feel safe in speculating that they were more than a little spooked by the evidence (which you have seen in this chapter) that only two cartridges were found, and that they could not be sure that a congressional investigation or wayward reporter would not stumble on the truth, and so decided to plant the ideological seeds necessary to justify a future reversal.

The existence of so much evidence of malfeasance by various parties that the Warren Commission would be inspired to plant the seeds for a reversal of their primary element leads us to some important questions related to the many individuals who are seemingly involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Here is the question of the day:

“Yes, the evidence clearly shows that at least one individual was reporting false information, but you have dozens involved in the Kennedy case, many telling the same story, which, when demonstrated false, reveals coordinated lying or coordinated memory failures or coordinated errors of perception or coordinated misanalysis. Just what is going on?”

Related to this question, the author is able to conceive of four possible hypotheses that could possibly provide an answer. Here they are:

1. The
   Simple Error
   Hypothesis
   

Under this hypothesis, the anomalies in the evidence could be explained by simple mistakes, failures of perception, etc.. For example, only
2
shells were on the ground, but the witnesses mistakenly thought they saw
3
.


This one can easily be rejected. Too many people reported seeing the
same
mistaken phenomenon to conclude that what they were reporting was a “mistake.” Also, we have photographs that show 3 shells on the ground, so those photographs were either forged or legitimate, but could in no way be seen as “mistaken.” So this one is out.


2. The
   False Reporting
   Hypothesis
   

Before we can get to any hypothesis that relates to individuals lying, we first need to be sure that the testimony of these individuals was
reported correctly
. Apparent synchronization of erroneous claims might have been achieved simply by reporting testimony
falsely
. In that case, what appears to be the actions of
numerous
individuals may only be the actions of
one
!


This is an extremely important topic, and if the allegation is true, has an extraordinary impact on all of the testimony reported in the case, affecting not only this issue but all others. Because of this, I have prepared a separate appendix that lists numerous examples of the Warren Commission and witnesses before the Commission falsely reporting reality, and is too large to include here because it will disrupt the main line of argument. The interested reader is urged to visit my website and download the appendix, which can be found in the “Appendices” document at the following URL:


http://www.krusch.com/jfk


If you like, you can download the document now, read it, and then return to this book, or just continue.


3. The
   Double Coverage Fallback Plan
   Hypothesis
   

Based on the material in the Appendix described above, it is clear that we cannot necessarily rely on the Warren Commission’s reporting of reality, but let’s assume for the moment that we could, and also that the photographic evidence is valid. Is there any other way to explain how
2
shells were
reported
found in the receipt documents when the testimony and photographs claim that
3
shells were found?


Yes, surprisingly enough, there is. We can call this the
double coverage fallback plan
hypothesis. Under this hypothesis, we would assume that the plot to assassinate the President and to pin the blame on Oswald had been long in the planning, but the perpetrators of the plan at the time of planning could not be sure that everything would go as expected. Accordingly, all contingencies had to be prepared for, and therefore the evidentiary foundation had to support
multiple
conclusions.


So, under this plan, here is what could have transpired. 3 shells were planted on the scene since the lone assassin scenario was the desired option (note: this does not mean that 3 bullets were
fired
from that location, only that the evidence would be found there). Thus, there would be witnesses around to support
seeing
3 shells, and any photographs that were taken of the scene would
record
3 shells. However, until Oswald was apprehended and killed, the lone assassin scenario would be too dangerous to support, with at least one
very key
individual alive who would be able to
contradict
that scenario!


So, until Oswald was killed, the conspiracy option had to be left open, and what better way to do that than to palm a shell, and put on the record documentary evidence that only 2 bullets were fired, thus proving that there was a conspiracy, so Oswald could be let off the hook. At the same time, the conspiracy could then be blamed on someone else like Cuba, justifying an invasion of Cuba if necessary, with a ready supply of Cuban patsies available if that option had to be chosen.


Once Oswald was killed, though, there was no need to postulate any conspiracy hypothesis in the media, and the documentary evidence that only 2 bullets were fired could be easily buried . . . just like, in fact, it was.


Admittedly, this is an extremely intriguing hypothesis, and it has one primary virtue, which is that it reduces the number of conspirators down to a very small number: the only ones who had to be a part of the plan were the ones who actually handled the evidence, Day, Fritz, and one or more key personnel at the FBI. Everyone else could be completely in the dark! It also accounts for all the inconsistencies that we’ve seen without having to suspect other possibly innocent individuals of participating in an after-the-fact conspiracy to cover up what really happened.


About this hypothesis, two points could be noted: needless to say, even though it states that 3 shells actually
were
present, it does not in any way, shape, or form provide support for the proposition that there was a “lone” assassin — to the contrary, it positively
contradicts
it, so you’re not going to find the Bugliosis of the world rallying around this one. Also, as intriguing as it is, the only support for it is the evidence that we have seen, which may or may not be enough to sustain it given all the other alternative hypotheses we have to explore.


And there is at least one more of these, so let’s give this one the final examination.


4. The
   Coordinated Lying
   Hypothesis