Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

# THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AN ANALYTICAL SOLUTION TO THE RIDDLES OF PLAZA DEALEY, OA K CLIFF. By Felix Menzot.

## Let the evidence speak. Gil Grissom, CSI--LVPD

This is a synthesis of the analytical solution to the events of nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, as further developed in the novel--essay Shadow Of Lee of this author. A simple, coherent, all encompassing, solution to the LHO riddle; the true where abouts of the man in those crucial hours. What Tippit was doing in Oak Cliff, wh o killed him, why; why Ruby went to talk with Seth Kantor; why only backyard pho to A is a fake.

A) THE BACKYARD PHOTOS. Of the three backyard photos, B and C are authentic; A is the fake. The really a mazing thing is that there would be still such a debate about them when all it's needed to prove that is to have good quality copies of them, at the same scale , and scissors. And also to know that light moves in a straight line. Now take a look at the central post and the edge of the shed. They are both vertical, so t hey appear practically parallel. Proceed to cut a rectangle in the center of pho to B (or C) which which will include both post & shed edge and which upper edge will pass through an identifiable spotfor ex. the upper light spot left to the ce ntral postand do the same for the bottom side, to facilitate superpositions. Then superpose this rectangle on photo C(or B) to make it fit with the rest of the p icture. You'll notice that both post & shed edge fit almost perfectly, there is an almost flawless transition from photo to rectangle and back; the rectangle bl ends in the background of the 2nd photo as if it really belonged to it. Now try to do the same with A: superpose the rectangle on photo A and you'll see that it is impossible to obtain a good superposition. The reason is, in photo A, post a nd shed edge form a small angle, they open up at the top of the picture. This cann ot be happening if all 3 photos were shot in the same place, from the same point (give or take a couple of inches in each direction) which is precisely what the background is telling us, as it is identical in all three. So what we got there is a blatant visual contradiction: background and angle post-shed edge tell us two different, contradictory stories. Even more, the background is greatly restr ictive on the condition it imposes: you only need to displace the camera a bit i n any direction to make it change. See for ex. the knife-like shadow falling on the fence, a most precise measuring tool; it will tells us of the smallest sidew ays camera movement, because the lowest point where it touches the post will fas t go up or down with the smallest sideways displacement of it. So we have here c lear evidence that the camera stayed stationary all along. A similar analysis ca n be made vertically, using some other elements as a visual reference. On the ot her hand the angle between post and shed categorically denies this, it says that this shot got to have been made from a different point. We have so arrived to a physical, visual, impossibility: the backgrounds indicates that all 3 pictures were shot from inside a 2-inch air cube, if in the same place, yet the angle pos t/shed in A is telling us that this one was shot from a very different point, if in the same place, the Neely house. That just can't happen in the real world. T

B) THE REAL PLOT AND THE ONE OSWALD THOUGHT HE HAD GOTTEN INTO.

Troy, Baker, Mrs, Reid or the journalist he met when exiting the TSBD declared t hat the showed any sign of alarm, or even curiosity when informed of the incide nt. The same testimonies talk of him as a nice man, incapable of violence. One t hing that is wildly overrated in the U.S. judicial system is the of notion of cha racter witness, one that means very little at the end. Just let's say that a char acter witness in a potential trial of Himmler, head of the SS and main responsib le of the Holocaust, would have declared that he was the most delicate, consider ed person in the world; a man that when he came home every night from worklet's c all it that waytiptoed his way inside his house, didn't even use the light, not t o wake up his pet parrot or some other bird. His own daughter would have said th e same, that he was the most loving dad ever. Himmler never killed or harmed any body with his own hands and when he saw Jews being shot for the first time he fa inted. And most people related to the other Nazi criminals would have said the s ame of them. Truth is, capacity for violence in someone is a dumb and ignorant con cept as it assumes that only some people are capable of committing acts of viole nce and others not, which has been proven wrong over and over again in History ( I personally know of a few of the nicest individuals committing political murder for fear of their lives, for revenge or for the good of the cause). The only th ing that people who take the discussion to Oswald's eventual capacity for violen ce proves, is that they don't know what they are talking about. Of course he was capable of violence! Every human being, every living thing, is. That's not the point of the discussion; the only one thing we need to know here is if he used i t--or if he contributed to its us by othersto terminate the life of the president of the U.S. All other discussion in his case is pure, simple, commentary. So, having established that the shots fired at 12.30 P.M. outside the TSBD didn' t affect him in any visible way; that four witnesses could see in the following 3 min. an unfazed Lee coming down and getting off the TSBD, we may logically ass ume that he was in the loop, that he had been thoroughly informed beforehandor so he thought--of what was really happening, for the simple reason that he himself was part of it. Now, the location of the motorcade when things happened could g ive us, by itself, at least a few analytical clues. Many expertsamongst them Crai g Roberts, perhaps the most knowledgeable--have entered the discussion and contr ibuted with their useful insights, and there is no doubt, after hearing them, th at the place on Elm where the ambush took place is not the best one, if the fire must come from the TSBD; and even less for other tall buildings in the proximit y we may add. Oswald did know something on the subjecthe had to learn something w hen with the Marinesand if he did have the opportunity of examining the operative situation, i.e., that under which context, conditions, the ambush was to take p lace, he may have agreed. The best op. situation for an assured killing was cert ainly that when the limousine would be going down Houston St, when shots could h ave been fired at it also from the back, from the roof of the buildings left beh ind. That is the verdict from many experts and it is likely that Oswald would ha ve agreed. Then, he would have looked at some other appropriate nests for shoote rs, for some others possibilities for an ambush in the Plaza, for other position s of the limousine, and the segment of Elm St. past the TBD would have been the only obvious because once past the Triple Overpass the limousine is gone, out of sight, unreachable. So, that is how a scheming Lee would have examined and anal yzed the situation: shots fired on a Houston bound limousine, sure assassination attempt. Shots fired on Elm past the TBD, assassination attempt but less sure: the only possible good sniper nests in that situation lie in front--the parking lot behind the Grassy Knoll, the Triple Underpassand shooters positioned there wo uld be too exposed, the risk would be great for them to be caught, at least dete cted. That's how Oswald, and anyone else who had been shown the place of the pla nned ambush, would have reacted, how they would have seen the op--situation. The main difference between the op--situation when positioning the limousine on Hou stonsure killand putting it on Elm--doubtful outcome--could be the crucial piece i n the puzzle here. If Lee was told by his right wing and anti--Castro friends that they wanted to carry out the ambush while Kennedy was still on Houston, he must have immediately come to suspect they really wanted to kill him, no matter how