JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

In 1971 activists broke into an FBI building in Pennsylvania and stole documents that revealed the extent of the FBI’s dirty tricks campaigns. Some of what was unearthed has echoes with the JFK Case and Lee Harvey Oswald. Planting false stories in the media, witness harassment and witness intimidation were all discovered. Perjury was employed as a method of obtaining convictions against J. Edgar Hoover’s elastic interpretation of ‘subversives.’ Infiltrating ‘subversive’ groups was a standard tactic. Indeed the joke went that the Communist Party of the USA, numbering 10,000, was kept afloat by the 1,000 FBI informants who all paid their dues on time. Concealing evidence by the FBI was part of the agency’s armoury and led to the release of two men wrongly convicted for the murder of Malcolm X 35 years after the event.

To those who dismiss the idea of a cover up in the case of JFK as being too impractical and involving too many people, I would argue that the FBI was not an organisation with a few bad apples. It was a rogue institution led by a rogue. Lying, cheating and silencing were its modus operandi yet that is the agency whose investigation of the JFK murder we are reliant upon for evidence. Hardly ideal, but we have to work with what we have.

In hindsight the three assassinations of US major political figures in the 1960s- JFK, MLK and RFK- are remarkable in that in each case, despite the victims having no shortage of political enemies, the accused all acted alone.

You keep wasting time with ever more elaborate ‘who might have done it’s’ or their so-called motives but you won’t address the sheer unlikeliness of them undertaking such an immensely complex plot and ensuing cover-up with about a 1000 things to potentially go disastrously wrong when they could have just found one sniper with a top rifle, in some room with no way of connecting him to the gun or the location….bang, bang….escape plan and away…..job done.

That they should have chosen the former over the latter leaves preposterous behind in its dust.

[Herlock Sholmes]

shows nicely that you don't understand the argument. Posts by you and GB below on this fall into the 'a little bit of knowledge is dangerous' category.

Just in case you hadn’t noticed Wulf…..these guys who are so confident in their conspiracy haven’t responded on my points to George on the railway line or to my points on Bowers or to my points on the carpark.

Anyone would think that they had no answers (or integrity)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can anybody suggest what kind of conspirator would have thought thus:

- ok, we’ve set up out patsy. We’ve persuaded his friends to lie about the curtain rods, we’ve forged the purchase documents for the rifle and revolver, we have his prints ready to plant them on the rifle and at the scene, we have some fibres from his shirt to plant, we’ve fixed it so that he’ll fail paraffin test, we’ve arranged for him to flee the scene and we’ve told him not to forget to pick up his revolver. Job done…..who could fail to blame Oswald with all of that?

Only for some bright spark to say:

- it’s not enough. We need to fake some photographs of Oswald holding the guns at one of the places where he used to live and we need to persuade his wife to say that she took them. Then we need to leave one (with Oswald’s handwriting on) floating around to be discovered at some later date.

And people actually believe this stuff. Real people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is a fact PI ,nor did he kill the President .

Only the Gullible fools believe this nonsense.

Is that an insult there? From innocent Fishy? Surely not….he never says anything wrong (like St. George) Only Herlock says things like that……surely.

[Aethelwulf]

Just in case you hadn’t noticed Wulf…..these guys who are so confident in their conspiracy haven’t responded on my points to George on the railway line or to my points on Bowers or to my points on the carpark.

Anyone would think that they had no answers (or integrity)

I'll refer you back to that article link you posted - what was the phrase about conspiracy theorists: 'lack of intellectual humility'

That is me for the weekend. There is this strange bright thing in the sky that I haven't seen for weeks, so going to make the most of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not that I’ll expect an acknowledgment from George of course but…..in response to his mocking point about how could there have been Pullman car in a car park near to the fence. I prefer to check the evidence first.



Whats that behind the fence in a 1967 photograph? Could it be a rail track? I think it is.

It terminated around 2 cars lengths from the fence. And at the usually suggested lone gunman spot I’d estimate that it was around 20 yards away. Easily close enough for Towner to have spoken to Carl Desroe from the fence.

So the next question has to be…….could a man standing on a Pullman carriage in that location, looking toward the motorcade at the time of the assassination, have possibly missed seeing a gunman?

I know what my answer would be but I predict some top level ignoring to come.

As I was correct again in that George wouldn’t respond to anything that he can’t answer I’ve looked a little further. I’ve proved that there was a train track behind the fence but that doesn’t prove that there was a carriage there of course, so I looked at the photo gallery on David Von Pein’s excellent website (which I recommend to anyone….a note of caution to conspiracy theorist though…it’s not a safe space for you) I found these.



Look over at the white structure and through the windows. What does that look like?

Then there’s this photo taken slightly later.



Does that look like the ‘thing’ that could be seen in the previous picture is no longer there.

So it looks like the question is what could this large, movable item have been that was located in an area where we know that there was a train track? A refrigerated lorry? Protestors holding a large placard? A temporary marquee?

[FrankO]

Just a couple of points. I guess you would have seen this report:

FBI agents James F. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill attended the autopsy of John Kennedy and submitted a report, part of which follows:

"During the latter stages of the autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger".

Hi George,

Yes, I’ve seen it and I’m not too impressed by it, since the claim of the downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees wasn’t made or repeated by Humes and these agents weren’t medical men involved in or responsible for the autopsy. Also, a downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees doesn’t make sense, as Aethelwulf has already pointed out. Furthermore, what Sibert and O’Neill wrote would invalidate the SBT and why would the FBI want to do that? Wasn’t all the evidence not pointing to Oswald as the lone shooter firing only 3 shots to be suppressed? I doesn’t make sense for them to have written what they wrote or, if they wrote it before they knew such evidence had to be suppressed, for the document not to have been suppressed.

I bear in mind that both LBJ and Hoover gave instructions that all evidence not pointing to Oswald as the lone shooter firing only three shots was to be suppressed.

That, in itself, isn’t evidence of anything. Like I wrote before, even without knowing any of the circumstances in which the/any president was killed, the fact itself could be reason for wild speculations and conspiracy-based theories with all its consequences for the country. It could also mean war. So, I don’t find it odd at all that these men gave such instructions.

The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.

And how many witnesses out of how many claimed that the 2^nd and 3^rd shot were “close to simultaneous”? Do you have names?

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Yes, I’ve seen it and I’m not too impressed by it, since the claim of the downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees wasn’t made or repeated by Humes and these agents weren’t medical men involved in or responsible for the autopsy. Also, a downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees doesn’t make sense, as Aethelwulf has already pointed out. Furthermore, what Sibert and O’Neill wrote would invalidate the SBT and why would the FBI want to do that? Wasn’t all the evidence not pointing to Oswald as the lone shooter firing only 3 shots to be suppressed? I doesn’t make sense for them to have written what they wrote or, if they wrote it before they knew such evidence had to be suppressed, for the document not to have been suppressed.


That, in itself, isn’t evidence of anything. Like I wrote before, even without knowing any of the circumstances in which the/any president was killed, the fact itself could be reason for wild speculations and conspiracy-based theories with all its consequences for the country. It could also mean war. So, I don’t find it odd at all that these men gave such instructions.


And how many witnesses out of how many claimed that the 2^nd and 3^rd shot were “close to simultaneous”? Do you have names?

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

1. Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Commission , interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before Earl Warren and his committee. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document.
The important point here is that Humes stated that the back wound terminated in the body. This was before he got his copy of the script.

2. I agree. This is what I have been saying all along. The American people would not tolerate the idea that their President had been murdered by agents of a foreign power.

3. I'm sure neither of us has such a list and neither of us would care to devote the time to compiling such a list. I thought the uneven spacing of the shots was common knowledge.

Just one final question. What do you think about the proposal that there was a Pullman Dining car parked behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll?

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps someone could post the ‘evidence’ that LBJ and Hoover ordered that all evidence of a conspiracy suppressed. I might as well ask for someone to produce a photograph of a unicorn of course because conspiracist all do the same thing. They read a perfectly normal, unremarkable non-sinister comment and ‘interpret’ it to suit their purposes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I wonder if George could produce the evidence that the reason that he states as a fact was the actual reason that Sibert and O’Neill. Or is this yet another example of a conspiracy theorist stating his own interpretation as if it’s a fact?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just one final question. What do you think about the proposal that there was a Pullman Dining car parked behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll?

Best regards, George

How childish. You really are embarrassing yourself on here George. You simply can’t discuss evidence can you? I’ve presented the evidence. None of which is invented or faked. None of which is my opinion.

A former military man says that he spoke to a railway employee on a Pullman, immediately after the shots were fired, the men said that he saw absolutely nothing being the fence.

A Deputy Sheriff confirmed the man’s presence.

I have provided proof that there was a rail track just behind the fence.

I have posted 2 photographed taken not long after each other. One of them shows something that looks like a railway carriage behind the white structure which is not there in the second photograph.

We also know that Boone checked the soil behind the fence and saw no footprints.

We also know that Lee Bowers in the tower, looking directly toward the Knoll, saw no one escaping.

We also know that the car park had been patrolled by the police since 10 am on the morning of the assassination.

We also know that this particular car park was used by the police, employees ant the courthouse and the District Attorneys (so it was a top choice as a spot for an assassination)

Obfuscate away…..

[GBinOz]

a downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees doesn’t make sense

Hi Frank,

A downward trajectory of 45 to 60 degrees from where? Imagine Humes with a probe in the wound. It shows a downward trajectory in relation to the back. He is going to estimate the angle from the back. If the president were sitting absolutely vertically with regard to the zenith, this would translate to 30 to 45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The following shows the president's posture at the approximate time of the shot(compared to Myers hunched proposal).



Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And how many witnesses out of how many claimed that the 2^nd and 3^rd shot were “close to simultaneous”? Do you have names?

Here are fifteen:




and it was like a double bang — bang, bang... This was instantaneous.

(KELLERMAN TESTIMONY)


The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other

(GREER TESTIMONY)


I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them.

(HICKEY TESTIMONY)



... there was a bang [and then a few seconds later] and then there was bang! bang! - very close together.

(ROBERT MACNEIL, CANADIAN JOURNALIST)



I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together.

(LEE BOWERS TESTIMONY)



... one shot, then a pause, and then two shots in very close order ... almost on top of each other.


(LEE BOWERS INTERVIEW)



... the second two [shots] seemed to be simultaneously.


(SEYMOUR WEITZMAN)



The second two shots were immediate. It was almost as if one were an echo of the other. They came so quickly, the sound of one did not cease until the second shot.

(MARY WOODWARD, DALLAS MORNING NEWS)



I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time and then there were two real fast bullets together.

(LINDA WILLIS, ONE OF THE EYEWITNESSES CLOSEST TO THE ASSASSINATION)



They were in rather rapid succession.

(DALLAS MAYOR EARLE CABELL)



Then a moment and then two more shots in rapid succession.

(LADY BIRD JOHNSON)



the first shot was fired, followed in quick succession by two more

(WILLIAM MCINTYRE TESTIMONY)



In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.

(CLYDE HAYGOOD TESTIMONY)



and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one


(JAMES JARMAN TESTIMONY)



there was a slight pause after the first shot and then the next two was right close together

(BILLY LOVELADY AFFIDAVIT)



I heard one shot and then a pause and then this repetition-two shots right behind the other

(EDWARD SHIELDS TESTIMONY)

[Fiver]

I am amazed that not only do you claim that I omitted Ted Callaway's evidence but that you should insinuate that I did so deliberately.

Anyone can view my # 1005 and see the following:

(6) Ted Callaway testified that the killer was wearing a light-brown tan jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a brown jacket. Calloway made a prejudiced statement about the way Oswald was dressed when he identified him: 'He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.' A more reasonable explanation is that he was someone else or even that he had taken it off at the police station.


You have reproduced a photograph of a light grey jacket, apparently claiming that it was Oswald's.

Callaway claimed that Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket.


It is beyond me how you can think that Callaway's evidence was not problematic and could have been used against Oswald when there is no evidence that Oswald even owned a light brown jacket.

There are several things wrong with your claims. This has already been shown in previous posts. Lets start with your error about Calloway's testimony.

Mr. BALL. What kind--when you talked to the police officers before you saw this man, did you give them a description of the clothing he had on?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Marina Oswald testified that the pictured jacket belonged to her husband.

Earline Robert, the manager of the apartment Oswald rented, testified that Oswald arrived around 1pm in shirt sleeves, put on a jacket, and left.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There are several things wrong with your claims. This has already been shown in previous posts...

Earline Robert, the manager of the apartment Oswald rented, testified that Oswald arrived around 1pm in shirt sleeves, put on a jacket, and left.

I quote from Earlene Roberts' affidavit to the Warren Commission:

Oswald went to his room and was only there a very few minutes before coming out. I noticed he had a jacket he was putting on. I recall the jacket was a dark color and it was the type that zips up the front. He was zipping the jacket up as he left.


And that evidence, I suggest, destroys the case against Oswald, which is based on his having worn a light grey jacket.