Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

[Barry Krusch]

After three years of research and writing, I have finally published the first volume of my book for the Kindle on Amazon, IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD. The book in its current form is over 900 pages in three volumes, and volumes 2 and 3 should be out within three to five weeks.

As you might have guessed by the title, the purpose of this book is to demonstrate once and for all that it would have been impossible for a court of law to have found Oswald guilty. Of course, many members of this forum know this already, but I needed to find a way to demonstrate this to the tens of millions of Americans who are not members of this forum.

There are several ways that this book is different from many books on the Kennedy assassination, and here are the two most significant.

In the first place, there are many people who don't have the means to purchase the dozens of books that I believe one needs to read to get a real grounding in the facts of the assassination, so I've decided to make Volume 1 free on the 22nd of every month through Amazon. This is a recent development, made possible five months ago when Amazon gave authors the power to designate "free days" for their books. Because of this development, people can get an introduction to what I see as the most basic facts about the Kennedy assassination in book form without having to purchase a book. Thus, instead of only having a few hundred or a few thousand people interested in the Kennedy assassination, hopefully there will be thousands, and eventually, tens or hundreds of thousands. The distribution of this book is limited only by how many people decide to tell how many people about the book. With millions of Kindle-ready devices out there (Kindles, iPads, Kindle for PC and Mac), there is no financial or technological obstacle out there that can prevent this.

In the second place, and probably the most significant, the evidence in this book is tied in to a method of proof I refer to as THE JFK CHALLENGE. It will be perfectly clear, after reading this book, that there is absolutely no case against Oswald, none whatsoever. However, there are many out there who are going to challenge this. They will say that I have distorted or omitted information to the extent that it alters the conclusion of the book. To those people I say, "fine, if you think you can prove that, take me before a group of arbitrators." Those people who have purchased the book have the right to take me to arbitrators if they so choose. They can prepare a rebuttal to my book, and I will prepare a counter-rebuttal. The arbitrators will then make the decision, which will be final. If they can make their case, I will pay them anywhere from $1000 to $12,000, depending on a large variety of parameters that I'm still in the process of developing.

Because of this JFK challenge, we are now able to determine who out there on the Internet that is saying that Oswald is guilty will back up what they say by taking me before an arbitrator. Vincent Bugliosi? John McAdams? Stephen King?

Let's take Bugliosi as an example. He stated in his book RECLAIMING HISTORY that it's essentially certain that Oswald was guilty. But suppose he will not take me before an arbitrator. What does that tell you?

I'm going to start a separate topic on THE JFK CHALLENGE to apprise members of the forum on any developments, including whether or not anyone accepts.

So, mark your calendars, and on the 22nd, download the book for free. Note: you do not need to own a Kindle to download the book, you can read the book on any computer, iPad, any device that has a Kindle application.

One more thing: since I'm making the book available for free, I would greatly appreciate getting reviews from people on the forum. I think I have made a strong case, but I would like to get feedback on that. Once I get twenty reviews, then I will make the second volume available for free, one day only, and announce that day in this topic.

Here is the link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007TBWQ3W

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Super! I am looking forward to this.

[Barry Krusch]

Thanks, Robert . . . I'd love to know what you think!

[Billy Swanson]

I don't post too much admittedly but I have to say, I'm very much looking forward to reading this as well. Thanks for posting about it.

So, mark your calendars, and on the 22nd, download the book for free.

The calendar has been marked.

[Barry Krusch]

Thanks, Billy....tell your friends...

[David Von Pein]

Barry,

Congrats on publishing Volume 1 of your book. I've just added it to my Kennedy Catalog website:

http://Kennedy-Books-Videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html#I

You are, of course, dead wrong about Lee Oswald, but I still commend you for getting your book published and made available on Amazon. (I like the cover too. Looks nice.)

Two Things That Prove Oswald's Guilt

Edited April 12, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Barry Krusch]

Thank you, David. You are in the book. I say a nice thing about you. Can you believe it?

[Frankie Vegas]

Thanks Mr Krusch for making Vol1 free. I can't wait to read it. I like the legal perspective on this case. I've reposted the link to Facebook.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of your challenge, what a fantastic way to open debate.

[Barry Krusch]

Thanks, Jim and Frankie.

Yes, let's see if someone will take the challenge.

[Barry Krusch]

Thanks! You caught the subtle helicopter reference....I was hoping someone would get the significance of that.

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007TBWQ3W?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B007TBWQ3W

Upon looking at the free sample of text from Barry Krusch's book "Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald: Volume One", I can already see a pretty major error (regarding the TSBD boxes that Barry points out in the book's Foreword).

Barry asks:

"Why are these boxes in different positions [in Commission Exhibits 733 and 509]? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?"

Well, the answer is: Yes, of course somebody at the WC noticed, and all of the information about the movement of those boxes fully comes out in the Warren Commission testimony of the DPD's Robert Studebaker (beginning at 7 H 141):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0075a.htm

Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as "Exhibit D," [which is the same exact picture that is seen in CE509] was that taken by you?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were moved?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint dust on every box.

Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

---------------

So, neither the Warren Commission nor the DPD (Studebaker) were trying to pass off CE509 (aka Studebaker Exhibit D) as a photo depicting the Sniper's Nest boxes as they were first found by the police on 11/22/63.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Studebaker was very honest and forthright about the photos that were taken after the boxes had been moved, and he openly told the WC that CE509/Studebaker D is a picture that was taken after the boxes had been moved and that that photo did not represent the configuration of the boxes when they were first discovered by police, with Studebaker also noting the fingerprint dust all over the boxes.

Now, I haven't the slightest idea why the DPD felt it was necessary to photograph the boxes in different positions after they had been dusted and moved around. I'm still scratching my head about why those photos were needed at all, but the fact is they were taken--and the DPD told the truth about them. They didn't hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved and dusted for prints.

And when looking at the photo of CE509, it couldn't be more obvious that the DPD wasn't even attempting to perfectly re-create the position of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest, because they didn't even place a box back on the window ledge for CE509. Instead, they stacked the "windowsill" box on top of the other two boxes.

And, btw, the other picture that Barry pointed out (CE733; aka Studebaker Exhibit J) is ALSO a picture that was taken after the boxes were moved--and that fact also comes out in Studebaker's WC testimony, at 7 H 147:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0078a.htm

Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the position they were in.

Mr. BALL. It is?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put them in the same exact position.

Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next number, which will be "Exhibit J."

Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put them in the same position?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And took a picture?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm

------------------

So I'm wondering why any conspiracist would look at CE509 and CE733 and still think the DPD was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes--particularly with Studebaker's very own truthful testimony about those boxes staring them in the face at 7 H 141 and 7 H 147?

Didn't you bother to even read Bob Studebaker's WC testimony, Barry? Apparently you didn't, otherwise you would have never written these words in your book: "Why are these boxes in different positions? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?"

MORE ABOUT THE BOXES AND STUDEBAKER:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html

Edited April 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Barry Krusch]

Well, David, the "major error" you refer to results from your taking my text out of context.

Here is what you wrote:

"Didn't you bother to even read Bob Studebaker's WC testimony, Barry? Apparently you didn't, otherwise you would have never written these words in your book: "Why are these boxes in different positions? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?"

Your key technique is the use of the phrase "you would have never written these words." I will now paste the actual text of what I wrote, and everyone can see exactly the context in which I wrote those words which will show no "major error":

"To prove that studying the Kennedy assassination will test your ability to distinguish reality from illusion, we will explore a few examples.

Let’s start with the arrangement of boxes where Oswald was supposedly situated. According to the Warren Commission (the first major government investigation of the Kennedy affair in 1964, followed by the second, the House Select Committee On Assassinations in 1979), only one of the photographs below represents the original position of the boxes at the “sniper’s nest,” the position they were in after the assassin (if indeed the assassin was located at that position) left the scene. But which one?

[PICTURES]

Now, you can immediately see that we’ve got ourselves a real problem here! A compare and contrast between the photographs, which any third-grader familiar with similar exercises found in Highlights should easily be able to do, results in a series of questions.

To prove any third-grader can do it, we can divide these questions into roughly 2 types named in honor of the two main rivals for Darla’s affection in the old Our Gang series, rivals who now have decided to stop squabbling and join forces. From this corner emerges Alfalfa, the straight-up earnest cow-licked boy lifted straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting . . .

[PICTURE]

. . . and from this corner, Butch, the snarling pugilist:

[PICTURE]

“Alfalfa” questions, just like their namesake, are polite and proper like questions should be, but “Butch” questions, by contrast, are rude and in-your-face in the best Gordon Ramsay style.

These archetypes firmly in mind, Alfalfa comes out swinging with his queries about the incompatible box feng shui:

• Why are these boxes in different positions?

• Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?

• If they did notice, did the Warren Commission not think that we would notice that these boxes were in different positions - and then start wondering why?"

My purpose in doing the compare and contrast with the photographs was to show the reader that they were going to come across evidence that would create natural questions in their minds. These questions would only arise if in fact they did do a compare and contrast exercise, so my real point is getting people to see the basic contradictions in the evidentiary base, so they can start asking the questions.

Your point is that there is a natural explanation that makes sense which would explain these contradictions -- that these questions have legitimate answers. Yet you yourself saw that these explanations are not completely satisfactory. Here is what you said relation to that point:

"Now, I haven't the slightest idea why the DPD felt it was necessary to photograph the boxes in different positions after they had been dusted and moved around. I'm still scratching my head about why those photos were needed at all, but the fact is they were taken--and the DPD told the truth about them. They didn't hide the fact that some pictures were taken after the boxes had been moved and dusted for prints."

I am glad you are scratching your head, and if everyone will keep scratching their heads, they may be able to determine the credibility of these explanatory stories.

In any event, I would invite you, David, after reading the three volumes, to accept the JFK challenge. You have an extensive knowledge of the background of the case, and I believe that you would be the perfect person to accept that challenge. What do you say?

[David Von Pein]

You've still got a major error there, Barry...and that's because your basic question of "Which one?" was answered in 1964...by Bob Studebaker....which is why I asked if you even read his testimony. Because if you had, you wouldn't need to ask "Which one?", because Studebaker answered it for you in '64.

The box confusion is really only confusing if you decide not to read through Bob Studebaker's testimony at all (which, granted, I imagine very few people have likely done). But as I pointed out in my WC excerpts, there is no doubt about which photo (CE733 or CE509) represents the configuration of the boxes prior to them being moved--it's 733, just like Studebaker said (although that picture, too, is a "re-creation" photo, taken after the boxes were moved; but it perfectly matches CE1301, which I think was taken before the boxes were moved).

The whole "box" thing is a silly argument to begin with, IMO. Just because a few boxes might have been moved by the police doesn't undo all the other evidence against Oswald. And there definitely were pictures taken of the SN prior to any of the boxes being moved.

Edited April 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

In any event, I would invite you, David, after reading the three volumes, to accept the JFK challenge. You have an extensive knowledge of the background of the case, and I believe that you would be the perfect person to accept that challenge. What do you say?

Not unless your arbitrator is a robot (i.e., someone who has never been exposed to any of the various myths and distortions about the evidence in the JFK case).

But since any arbitrator is going to be human, and since more than 75% of all humans with any opinion about the JFK case favor the idea of conspiracy, and since virtually all of that opinion has been based on nothing but silly myths and conjecture (such as the still-favored myth about Oswald being a terrible shot and the myth about how the Warren Commission insisted that the shooting took place in only 5.6 seconds and the myth about how the WC had no choice but to "move" JFK's back wound up into his neck in order to make the SBT viable)....then I don't think I'd be willing to risk any cash on such a venture.* And that's because, all too often, I've run into people who claim to be totally unbiased about this case, only to hear the very same tired, worn-out conspiracy myths coming from their lips--over and over again.

* = Or does the person accepting your challenge actually risk any cash at all in this venture? Or are you the only one who pays out the dough if you lose?

But if your arbitrator is made out of metal and microchips (with its "CT Myths" mode set to the "Off" position), then I'd be more than willing to argue the case in front of such an unbiased machine.

Edited April 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Barry Krusch]

Just what I thought. A dodge. You are my first, congrats!