Booth vs Oswald

In the last post I was talking about Stephen King’s comments on Oswald being the sole gunman in the Kennedy assassination.

As much I enjoyed reading the novel 11/22/63, I read it for what it was, fiction. Just because his research did not seem to uncover any evidence that went against the Congressional investigations – unless, of course, that was the extent of any investigating he accomplished – does not mean there isn’t any.

And there is. Plenty.

There are several places on the web showing evidence that the Zapruder film was “doctored”. Certain frames seem to enhance the damage to Kennedy’s head by the shot from the rear. The fact that the motorcade came to a stop is not shown on the film at all. But still the marvelous cloud of pink spray behind the President’s head was not removed… perhaps no one noticed it.

The two best sites for this are assassinationscience.com and assassinationresearch.com.

One author, Vincent Bugliosi, contends that Oswald was far too unreliable for him to have been the pawn for a conspiracy by the CIA or the Mafia. And if he had been a part of a conspiracy, wouldn’t there have been a car to whisk him away to safety? Indeed, Bugliosi boasts, Oswald was the first assassin to escape by public transportation!

Actually if the twenty-four year old Oswald had been part of the assassination, why would he linger in the lunchroom at the schoolbook depository before leaving the area? That is the behavior of an innocent man, not a erratic and unreliable young man.

But this description of Oswald sounds a lot like the backers of the Lincoln assassination in the volume Dark Union. They also would not have relied on Booth because he was found to be erratic and unreliable. Even the Confederate Secret Service would have known as much if it had been them behind the plot.

So, the evidence in both cases points to the assassins being lone mavericks, unstable and neurotic, surprisingly incapable of rational thought for extended periods of time and yet we are led to believe that these two young men were able to take out two presidents!

With all the lose ends and doctored evidence in both cases, I second Oswald’s motion that he was just a patsy.

And I think it holds true for Booth’s case as well.