The framing IMO began on Sunday night on live TV when Dan Rather described the Zapruder film to the nation (but of course the nation never saw that film publicly until 1975). In it, he described how he fell forward when he was hit in the head, leaving out the back and to the left motion. I know any number of people are going to disagree with this "back and to the left" movement as signifying that it was caused by a frontal shot.
I have high-speed videos of men whose heads are in the same position as Kennedy's and they both take high-powered shots to the back of the head - neither of them go back and to the left like Kennedy did. But the point being, someone told Rather to keep it simple when he, as a reporter, "described" what he saw.
Oswald was already dead at this point when Rather went on TV, so it's very easy to manipulate the story and we have proof of that with the Katzenbach memo. No films or photos needed to be faked as it's much easier to manipulate the record by a bunch of lawyers, suppressing or not interviewing witnesses who go against the grain of the official story, showcasing those who do, interrupting witness testimony and injecting statements that kind of change the shape of the testimony, and so on.
Further, no body alteration and throwing his body into the cargo of AF1 and being picked up by a thrumming helicopter to be squirreled away and altered by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready was needed as well as all of the other nonsense. This was all created by "esteemed" authors to make a buck and to shovel their bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns to the many suckers out there.
We must also include Oswald's own statements - he said he was a patsy; he said the BYP were fake and in time he could prove it; he said he was out front during the P parade (corroborated by two people now); a co-worker testified that LHO asked him what the ruckus was about before the shooting. And it's very, very possible he was caught on camera standing in the front vestibule moments after the shooting.
And to Walt Cakebread - your silly story about Oswald being told he was going to take a potshot at Kennedy is an old one. I remember reading that way back in the early 70s. It's a silly story. Oswald was no dummy and I think it'd be next to impossible to get anyone to go along with a ridiculous caper like that.
Ruth Payne got him the job there. Who had all of this additional paperwork on him afterward?
I invite you to go here:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Distaso-CA.htmThis is the closing argument by the district attorney during the Scott Peterson case. I know - WTF are you posting this for as it's got nothing to do with JFK. But take a while to read it. In it, I love the parts where this guy says over and over again, "It makes no sense. It's unreasonable."
Then apply this thinking to the JFK case. Is it reasonable, for example, to expect a guy to fire world-class shots at the president, dodge a bunch of boxes and hide his weapon and then be down on the 2nd floor calm and collected drinking a soft drink when he's seen there 90 seconds afterward? And so on and so forth.