Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There was no defence for Oswald since the FBI took the role of the prosecution. There are two sides to every story and Oswald's has been told on the basis of fragments (such as Fritz's notes) by many people since. He was never given a fair hearing from the moment Jack Ruby (Mafia Goodfellas level of an organisation that the FBI did not recognise as existing) executed him while Oswald was handcuffed in DPD.

    To damn Oswald you need to hear his side of the story. That was never told.

    Comment


    • This was also lost in the glitch - paper explaining why earwitnesses were confused over gunshot directions. Won't re-post everything, reference and abstract below:

      McFadden D (2021) Why Did the Earwitnesses to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Not Agree About the Location of the Gunman? Frontiers in Psychology. 12:763432. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763432 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.763432/full)​​​. Open access and fine to re-post but must cite Copyright 2021 McFadden.

      ​Earwitnesses to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) did not agree about the location of the gunman even though their judgments about the number and timing of the gunshots were reasonably consistent. Even earwitnesses at the same general location disagreed. An examination of the acoustics of supersonic bullets and the characteristics of human sound localization help explain the general disagreement about the origin of the gunshots. The key fact is that a shock wave produced by the supersonic bullet arrived prior to the muzzle blast for many earwitnesses, and the shock wave provides erroneous information about the origin of the gunshot. During the government's official re-enactment of the JFK assassination in 1978, expert observers were highly accurate in localizing the origin of gunshots taken from either of two locations, but their supplementary observations help explain the absence of a consensus among the earwitnesses to the assassination itself.

      Also some comments from expert acoustic observers during the 1978 reenactment:

      Perhaps most importantly, both primary observers were overwhelmed by those rifle shots originating from the grassy knoll. Those were very loud and unambiguous. We are convinced that had any rifle shots actually originated from the knoll area on the day of the assassination, the earwitnesses from that vicinity would have shown high confidence and high agreement about that fact. The fence on the grassy knoll was only a few meters to the right of the amateur photographer, A. Zapruder. Had a rifle shot actually originated from the grassy knoll, his startle response might well have knocked him sideways, off his perch on the pergola.

      The expert observers on other locations:

      Almost all of the gunshots during the re-enactment gave rise to sounds whose origins were diffuse, not narrowly focused or precise. No matter what our observer positions or the marksmen's target, our perceptions were of general areas for the origin of the gunshots, never anything as precise as the corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD or the corner of the fence behind the grassy knoll. Indeed, from some observer positions the origin might appear off to the east of the TSBD or from the underpass down Elm Street, but our forced-choice decisions in those situations were TSBD and grassy knoll, respectively.​​

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
        There was no defence for Oswald since the FBI took the role of the prosecution. There are two sides to every story and Oswald's has been told on the basis of fragments (such as Fritz's notes) by many people since. He was never given a fair hearing from the moment Jack Ruby (Mafia Goodfellas level of an organisation that the FBI did not recognise as existing) executed him while Oswald was handcuffed in DPD.

        To damn Oswald you need to hear his side of the story. That was never told.
        oh bullshit. hes a loser and a traitor and got what he deserved. you almost you sound like you admire him.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
          There was no defence for Oswald since the FBI took the role of the prosecution. There are two sides to every story and Oswald's has been told on the basis of fragments (such as Fritz's notes) by many people since. He was never given a fair hearing from the moment Jack Ruby (Mafia Goodfellas level of an organisation that the FBI did not recognise as existing) executed him while Oswald was handcuffed in DPD.

          To damn Oswald you need to hear his side of the story. That was never told.
          Rubbish. The evidence against Oswald was an overwhelming mountain. People have been found guilty on a fifth of the evidence that existed against him.

          Ruby was part of no plot as the evidence overwhelmingly showed. He passed a lie detector saying that he acted alone.

          You have to keep resorting to fantasy and woolly ‘theories’ to try and exonerate a blatant murdering lowlife.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            oh bullshit. hes a loser and a traitor and got what he deserved. you almost you sound like you admire him.
            Well said Abby. These people will malign the reputations of decent men whilst praising a murderer like Oswald because it boosts their egos. It makes them feel like they’re doing something noble. I’d like to see them tell that to Kennedy’s family and friends.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
              This was also lost in the glitch - paper explaining why earwitnesses were confused over gunshot directions. Won't re-post everything, reference and abstract below:

              McFadden D (2021) Why Did the Earwitnesses to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Not Agree About the Location of the Gunman? Frontiers in Psychology. 12:763432. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763432 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.763432/full)​​​. Open access and fine to re-post but must cite Copyright 2021 McFadden.

              ​Earwitnesses to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) did not agree about the location of the gunman even though their judgments about the number and timing of the gunshots were reasonably consistent. Even earwitnesses at the same general location disagreed. An examination of the acoustics of supersonic bullets and the characteristics of human sound localization help explain the general disagreement about the origin of the gunshots. The key fact is that a shock wave produced by the supersonic bullet arrived prior to the muzzle blast for many earwitnesses, and the shock wave provides erroneous information about the origin of the gunshot. During the government's official re-enactment of the JFK assassination in 1978, expert observers were highly accurate in localizing the origin of gunshots taken from either of two locations, but their supplementary observations help explain the absence of a consensus among the earwitnesses to the assassination itself.

              Also some comments from expert acoustic observers during the 1978 reenactment:

              Perhaps most importantly, both primary observers were overwhelmed by those rifle shots originating from the grassy knoll. Those were very loud and unambiguous. We are convinced that had any rifle shots actually originated from the knoll area on the day of the assassination, the earwitnesses from that vicinity would have shown high confidence and high agreement about that fact. The fence on the grassy knoll was only a few meters to the right of the amateur photographer, A. Zapruder. Had a rifle shot actually originated from the grassy knoll, his startle response might well have knocked him sideways, off his perch on the pergola.

              The expert observers on other locations:

              Almost all of the gunshots during the re-enactment gave rise to sounds whose origins were diffuse, not narrowly focused or precise. No matter what our observer positions or the marksmen's target, our perceptions were of general areas for the origin of the gunshots, never anything as precise as the corner window on the 6th floor of the TSBD or the corner of the fence behind the grassy knoll. Indeed, from some observer positions the origin might appear off to the east of the TSBD or from the underpass down Elm Street, but our forced-choice decisions in those situations were TSBD and grassy knoll, respectively.​​
              Good stuff Wulf. Sadly this lot are immune to evidence. Who needs it when you can pull stupid theory after stupid theory out of their hats then scream ‘fake’ and ‘forgery.’ (Obviously they won’t scream fake at the provably faked document that they’ve dishonestly been relying on though.)

              Comment


              • In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Roy Kellerman related that he turned round and saw Kennedy holding both hands up to his throat.

                He then turned round, facing the front, and said to the driver, Let’s get out of here; we are​ hit, grabbed the mike and said, Lawson, this is Kellerman. We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately.

                Now, in the seconds [which he estimated as 4-5 seconds] that I talked just now, a flurry of shells [Kellerman's alternative name for what he called a double bang] come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our follow-up car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into the back seat.

                But anyone viewing the Zapruder film can see that what happened was very different.

                Kellerman does not come fully into view for a while after Kennedy has been shot, but when he does he is looking at Kennedy almost the whole time until just after Kennedy's head explodes.

                He claimed that he was on the radio, facing forwards when he heard the double shot, but the film shows him watching Kennedy.

                Even more damningly, at a time which, according to Kellerman, was after he had told Greer, Let’s get out of here; we are hit, both he and Greer can be seen looking back at Kennedy.

                The only conclusion is that, contrary to Kellerman's claim that he and Greer were doing everything they could to get Kennedy to safety, they were in fact waiting for him to be fatally wounded.



                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                  Thank you for reminding me, Cobalt.

                  I have mentioned it previously, but I did on this occasion - in # 1308 - mention the FBI's disbelief that the man was really Oswald:

                  The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.

                  (FBI memo)


                  I think that either you are referring to the same memo or to a telephone call from Hoover to Johnson containing substantially the same information:


                  That's one angle that's very confusing. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's {Oswald's} voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.

                  (Hoover to Johnson)


                  There is a considerable body of evidence that Oswald was being impersonated - in both America and Mexico - and that the director of the FBI was convinced that he was being impersonated.

                  The question is: if Oswald was acting alone, and nobody knew of his plans, and no-one was interested in him, why was he being impersonated on numerous occasions?

                  Why was he being impersonated shooting bull's eyes at shooting ranges, saying he would come into money on or soon after 23 November, after test driving a car at 70 mph, asking two people separately to have the sight on his rifle repaired, and making a spectacle of himself at the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy, while declaring his devotion to the Cuban Revolution?

                  There is only one possible explanation: he was being framed.

                  Funny way to frame a man - get someone to impersonate him who looks and sounds nothing like him.

                  Great plan. Remind me to pick Lenny Henry to stand in for me if I ever need an alibi.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    I think it is clear that Oswald was claiming that he was being framed, and that he was alleging that his supposed defection to the Soviet Union was being used as a pretext to pin the assassination on him.

                    If he had not used the word 'patsy', then I would agree with you, but he did.

                    The fact that he did not go into detail does not mean he would not have spilled the beans later.

                    He indicated to a Secret Service agent just before he was murdered that he would consider his invitation to tell what he knew about any conspiracy.



                    I would remind you of two of our exchanges on related matters.


                    You claimed that Ruby denied that there was a conspiracy - and it is true that he made conflicting statements.


                    In response, I quoted Ruby stating categorically:


                    (1) that there was a conspiracy, involving someone or persons in the Dallas Police Department, to murder Oswald

                    (2) that he shot Oswald on the orders of powerful people

                    (3) that powerful people would cover up the truth about both assassinations



                    You claimed that Oswald wrote a letter in which he referred to his alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.


                    In response, I cited evidence cited by the Los Angeles Times that the Soviet ambassador noted in an internal memo that the letter, which had been typed, was a forgery.

                    It had been compared with letters known to have been received from the real Oswald and it did not match them.



                    I would not dream of accusing you of being gullible, but I don't see how you can explain away the categorical statements made by Ruby about a conspiracy, a cover-up, about the timing of his shooting of Oswald - I suppose what Caz would call something 'written in the stars' - and about his having been ordered to kill Oswald.

                    I would also point out that his statement that he received help from within the Dallas Police Department to kill Oswald was made under oath.

                    The fact that Dobrynin concluded that the letter you say was written by Oswald was a forgery is damning enough, but the fact that he did so privately suggests that he was not in any way trying to disseminate false information.

                    The fact that the letter was typed is also significant, since a forger might have been able to forge Oswald's signature, but could hardly have forged a whole letter.

                    The forging of Oswald's signature on the letter to the Soviet Embassy obviously has implications for the genuineness of the signatures you say Oswald produced in Mexico City.

                    As Edwin Lopez noted, Sylvia Duran did not confirm that Oswald signed his application form in her presence.

                    It was established that the Oswald in Mexico City did not obtain photographs there.
                    If a distraught Jack Ruby seized a 'written in the stars' opportunity to avenge JFK's assassination, while the balance of his mind was deeply disturbed, it would have been a case of shoot in haste, repent at leisure. When he had the time to cool down and fully appreciate the impact on his own future by taking out Oswald, it could have been very much to his advantage to claim he had acted "under orders" from people in high places, having just got the whole conspiracy bandwagon going by his own rash act of murder. If he gave contradictory or ambiguous statements, which conspiracy theorists would inevitably lap up like mother's milk, wouldn't that have been the natural instinct of anyone concerned with their own self preservation? It's dangerous to take the word of a killer caught red-handed, if he doesn't take full unconditional, unequivocal responsibility for his own actions, or allows people to believe his strings were being pulled by others.

                    There is overwhelming evidence that Ruby did not act alone, that Oswald's letter to the Soviet Embassy was a forgery, and that he was impersonated by someone in Mexico City who was inches shorter, had a different hair colour, was about 10 years older, looked nothing like him, did not personally sign his application form, and went through the motions of visiting photo booths recommended by Duran.
                    That's just hilarious.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 03-16-2023, 09:56 AM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                      In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Roy Kellerman related that he turned round and saw Kennedy holding both hands up to his throat.

                      He then turned round, facing the front, and said to the driver, Let’s get out of here; we are​ hit, grabbed the mike and said, Lawson, this is Kellerman. We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately.

                      Now, in the seconds [which he estimated as 4-5 seconds] that I talked just now, a flurry of shells [Kellerman's alternative name for what he called a double bang] come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our follow-up car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into the back seat.

                      But anyone viewing the Zapruder film can see that what happened was very different.

                      Kellerman does not come fully into view for a while after Kennedy has been shot, but when he does he is looking at Kennedy almost the whole time until just after Kennedy's head explodes.

                      He claimed that he was on the radio, facing forwards when he heard the double shot, but the film shows him watching Kennedy.

                      Even more damningly, at a time which, according to Kellerman, was after he had told Greer, Let’s get out of here; we are hit, both he and Greer can be seen looking back at Kennedy.

                      The only conclusion is that, contrary to Kellerman's claim that he and Greer were doing everything they could to get Kennedy to safety, they were in fact waiting for him to be fatally wounded.



                      I thought that the Zapruder film was faked?

                      …….

                      Just like all conspiracy theorists you make absolutely no allowance for the circumstances. You expect a man seeing the President get killed completely out of the blue and in a very few traumatic seconds to have not only behaved like a man getting up to turn over the TV but to have had perfect recall of everything. It’s called judging actions in context.

                      I know that you won’t answer this one because you have no answer but again can you honestly believe that an experienced rifleman couldn’t have hit Kennedy from a very few yards away in a car that was crawling past at 11 mph? It would only have been fractionally more difficult than shooting plastic ducks on a fairground stall.

                      So this is another thing we can add to the long list of ‘why there clearly wasn’t a conspiracy’ list - why did our conspirators select a grassy knoll assassin who didn’t feel confident that he couldn’t hit a man 30 yards away and crawling past at 11 mph. He need him moving even slower!! And not only that, they do this ‘suspicious’ act in front of hundreds of people….some of them filming the event.

                      Keep posting this guff PI. The conspiracy theorist hole just gets deeper and deeper.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-16-2023, 10:07 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Funny way to frame a man - get someone to impersonate him who looks and sounds nothing like him.

                        Great plan. Remind me to pick Lenny Henry to stand in for me if I ever need an alibi.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X


                        They just walk into them Caz.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRB View Post

                          If 'they' were trying to frame the real Oswald, why were they doing such a poor job of it? Not even bothering to find an impersonator who matched Oswald in any way seems hugely unlikely.

                          I also don't believe for a second that the real Oswald couldn't drive.
                          Good post, PRB.

                          I can't drive. At least, I never got as far as taking a test. But many years ago, when my ex was giving me a few lessons to see if I liked it [driving lessons for you mucky lot at the back ], I once drove at 70 mph down a dual carriageway towards the south coast and my L plate flew off. And the car wasn't an automatic.

                          If the real Oswald was more afraid of being in the driving seat than I was, I'd be very surprised.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                            Fishy,

                            Better not to insult anyone like Caz. I often disagree with her but she always offers superficial respect. So better, I think, to do likewise.

                            If Oswald was on the ground floor at 12.23, as his replies to Fritz suggest and are indirectly verified, then in terms of common sense he could not have been in the sniper's nest at 12.30. Whatever his previous role or subsequent actions, he was not the gunman.

                            Who was the first person the authorities discovered on the 6th floor after the assassination? I genuinely do not know.
                            Not when she talks nonsense I wont ,which is what she did bringing up the covid debate again , im sick to death of this constant attack from posters who think there better and smarter that everyone else . They shouldToddle off to Twitter if thats all they can do .
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • So we KNOW FOR A FACT that Kennedy’s security was exactly the same as on his tour of San Diego.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT (thanks to the Zapruder film) that the suggestion that the car came to halt is not her in a long, long list of conspiracy theorist lies.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the car did indeed slow down (almost imperceptibly) when Greer quite naturally turned around to see what was going on. Nothing suspicious in that of course.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT that even the poorest of marksmen could have hit Kennedy, travelling at 11 pm, from the picket fence.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT that Kennedy took a quite fatalistic view about security. He never wanted them all around him. He even said that if someone wanted to kill him there’s nothing that could be done against someone with a rifle in a building somewhere.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT that not only do conspiracy theorists believe that even under the most traumatic of circumstances people should behave as if working from a textbook, they believe that every slight digression is indicative of a conspiracy.

                              We also KNOW FOR A FACT that they have absolutely no qualms about assassinating the reputations of men oh good character. Men whose children and grandchildren are still alive.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Not when she talks nonsense I wont ,which is what she did bringing up the covid debate again , im sick to death of this constant attack from posters who think there better and smarter that everyone else . They shouldToddle off to Twitter if thats all they can do .
                                Remember the lists of mockery and insults from you that I posted?

                                Another hypocrite.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X