JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have.

It is on record.

So anyone wanting to examine them has to trawl back through nearly 2,000 posts because you can’t be bothered to take a few seconds to repost them?

[Fiver]

You have previously said to me, feel free to provide evidence about the prevailing view at Scotland Yard about the graffito and that there were no Jewish sailors.

I did.

You did not. You provided no evidence that there was any prevailing view at Scotland Yard about the GSG.

As for Oswald's Russian-speaking ability, it is well-documented and I have cited much of the evidence for it.

Oswald's Russian speaking ability is well-documented - he wasn't very good at it. You have provided no evidence that Oswald was fluent in Russian.

[cobalt]

Oswald’s ability in Russian language is an example of the contradictory evidence that is placed before us. The evidence he was poor comes from the USSR (he might have been faking) and the evidence he was good comes mainly from ‘White Russians’ in the USA (they could have been exaggerating.)

We can develop an argument from either basis but I do not think we will make any headway in trying to convince those who prefer their own evidence on this disputed point.
I don’t see it as crucial to either side of the debate, except in so far as it suggests there was some level of deception taking place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Shenon continued…

While the commission layers felt that the FBI were actively obstructing their work (probably to cover up their bungling surveillance of Oswald) they still believed early on that the CIA were cooperating until February where the staff learned from the Secret Service that, in the hours after the assassination, they had received from the CIA reports about Oswald’s visit to Mexico City. Rankin went over Helms head to the head of the CIA John McCone insisting that the commission receive all reports on Oswald plus any contacts that they had with other agencies in regard to Oswald. They received a thick file on March 6th which began with Oswald’s defection in 1959. They knew straight away that there was stuff missing though (including any cables or paperwork that the Mexico City CIA had sent to headquarters) Helms said that they were held back for security reasons. A meeting was arranged with Helms where he was asked directly if Oswald had ever worked for the CIA? He said that he definitely hadn’t and that he and McCone were prepared to sign affidavits under penalty of perjury. He said that the reason that some items were held back was because they would reveal surveillance methods. The commission agreed to received a version of these paper with certain information withheld. When asked about Oswald’s time in Mexico City Helms said that the evenings on his trip were entirely unaccounted for so they didn’t know where he’d been or who he’d met. Asked why the surveillance photograph hadn’t been sent to them Helms said that it was because they had quickly discovered that it wasn’t of Oswald.


Proof that the FBI deliberately withheld evidence came when on of the lawyers, Norman Redlich, read the handwritten transcript of what Oswald had written in his address book. Showing a persistence and a dedication to getting at the truth which some claim that the commission didn’t have Redlich took the time and effort to get the actual address book and check through it entry by entry (and remember, Redlich was the clearing house of all documents received by the commission meaning that he had to laboriously read a mind-boggling number of documents) He discovered that the entry for page 25 of the transcript was missing. He checked the address book and saw that it contained the written entry: “Agent James Hasty,” plus Hosty’s office address and the license number of his car. It was at this point that the Commission realised that it couldn’t trust the FBI and that this couldn’t have been explained as an oversight.


Rankin wrote to Hoover asking for the name of the agent who wrote the transcript. He responded angrily saying that the entry was not included because it provided no investigative lead and that there was mention of Hosty elsewhere. Hosty himself said that this was untrue and that the agent who wrote it was a friend of his called John Kesler and that he wrote it to because: “Kesler had simply been trying to save me from Hoover’s wrath.” In December Hosty was disciplined with a reprimand signed by Hoover: “ your recent handling of a security type case was grossly inadequate……It should have been apparent to you that he required a status which would have insured further investigative attention.” As Hosty later said - now I know who was the real patsy.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oswald’s ability in Russian language is an example of the contradictory evidence that is placed before us. The evidence he was poor comes from the USSR (he might have been faking) and the evidence he was good comes mainly from ‘White Russians’ in the USA (they could have been exaggerating.)

We can develop an argument from either basis but I do not think we will make any headway in trying to convince those who prefer their own evidence on this disputed point.
I don’t see it as crucial to either side of the debate, except in so far as it suggests there was some level of deception taking place.

It is quite obvious that there was a deception.

Shortly before his supposed defection, Oswald impresses a student of Russian with his Russian-speaking ability, and yet after arriving in the USSR, he has to have everything translated; yet a doctor reports that he evidently does not need to have a translator, his work colleagues have to use miming to communicate with him, and his Russian language teacher reports that he cannot pronounce anything correctly and is a hopeless student.

On his return to the USA, several witnesses report that he speaks excellent Russian.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not even close to obvious. Just because one student of Russian was impressed with Oswald’s Russian means precisely zero. That students Russian might simply have been worse than Oswald’s. I’m better than my best mate at snooker but I’m utterly useless compared to Ronnie O’Sullivan. It’s very, very clear that Oswald had been learning Russian for a while but different people learn at different speeds and some people are just better that others at languages and some are just slow learners. Numerous people in Russia tried to help Oswald with his Russian…and they were Russian. So by the time that he returned and after living in Russia for 3 years Oswald’s Russian couldn’t fail to have improved. There is no mystery here.

If you look at every aspect of this with a preconception then pretty much everything can be made to appear sinister. Oswald was clearly not the kind of person that would be used as a spy. He was far too unbalanced. The man even threw a huge sulk with his ‘suicide’ attempt.

[FISHY1118]

Then how does that equate to a conspiracy? If all of these committee members signed up to a corrupt commission why would there have been any dissent? If LBJ was determined to falsely prove that an innocent Oswald was guilty why would he express doubts? It makes no sense. And we have to be accurate here. None of them believed that Oswald didn’t shoot the President; they were unanimous on that. It’s just that it was the opinion 2 of them that Kennedy and Connally were hit by 2 different bullets so they felt that there must have been a second gunman. To hold an entirely corrupt commission would have been a physical impossibility. When you read how it was set up, what was involved, who were involved, how they went about it, the complaints they they had, and how many of them actually fully expected to find a conspiracy (and are in print having said so) you would see how impossible it would have been. This is why I’m current reading about the commission in a book not written by a lone gunman supporter or a conspiracy theorist…just a respected journalist who wanted to learn more about the Commission.

What particular pieces of evidence didn’t see the light of day?

LBJ personal opinion regarding the magic bullet and why Oswald had to be found guilty by the WC are two separate points , it was political. You have to start from here to understand why and how he was found guilty by the WC.

Point 2. Thats because the evidence they were using demonstrated that he did shoot Kennedy ,they had no choice to think that way.

It about the evidence that wasn't produced..

What evidence you say ?

The evidence that has shown to contradict and not only contradict but imo proven to do so by many of us who have spent the last 10 weeks posting such evidence .

You don't agree or believe with that evidence, as is your right to do so, so there is no point going over it all again .

Just as it is my right is not to believe or agree the WC evidence.

[Aethelwulf]

The evidence that has shown to contradict and not only contradict but imo proven to do so by many of us who have spent the last 10 weeks posting such evidence .

Must have missed this. I don't recall seeing any evidence of this nature, just misguided thinking and erroneous conclusions being reached, mainly parroting nonsense that was clearly wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just to be clear about one thing: some of the Commission members rejected the Single Bullet Theory, as did Governor Connally.

That means they realised that there was more than one gunman and, consequently, a conspiracy.

Once you realise there was a conspiracy, certain things such as the empty cartridge cases being found conveniently in such a way as to incriminate Oswald, and Oswald's practically unusable Carcano, and his claim that he was a patsy, start to make sense.

And then, of course, the Dallas Police's most unfortunate loss of the alleged assassin, murdered by a man who just happened to arrive on the scene at just the right, unannounced, moment of Oswald's transfer, in order to be able to make sure that the man who claimed to be a patsy didn't get a chance to defend himself in a trial.

Of course there was a conspiracy - and everyone on the Warren Commission knew it, but only a minority were prepared to admit it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

LBJ personal opinion regarding the magic bullet and why Oswald had to be found guilty by the WC are two separate points , it was political. You have to start from here to understand why and how he was found guilty by the WC.

Point 2. Thats because the evidence they were using demonstrated that he did shoot Kennedy ,they had no choice to think that way.

It about the evidence that wasn't produced..

What evidence you say ?

The evidence that has shown to contradict and not only contradict but imo proven to do so by many of us who have spent the last 10 weeks posting such evidence .

You don't agree or believe with that evidence, as is your right to do so, so there is no point going over it all again .

Just as it is my right is not to believe or agree the WC evidence.

But your specific point wasn’t about evidence for conspiracy it was about evidence that wasn’t produced at the WC. I’m not aware of any. So could you please post some specific pieces of evidence so that we can discuss them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Plenty of important witnesses were not called by the Warren Commission.

Jack Ruby practically had to beg to be allowed to testify.

Why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to be clear about one thing: some of the Commission members rejected the Single Bullet Theory, as did Governor Connally.

No one has denied that. But no one on the commission said that Oswald was innocent. So were they right on the first part but wrong on the second? And how do you judge when the Commission got something right and when they got it wrong? Or is it that you only agree or disagree when it suits?

That means they realised that there was more than one gunman and, consequently, a conspiracy.

Including Oswald.

Once you realise there was a conspiracy, certain things such as the empty cartridge cases being found conveniently in such a way as to incriminate Oswald and Oswald's practically unusable Carcano and his claim that he was a patsy start to make sense.

Do you mean that the cartridges were conveniently where cartridges would have been? Where else could they have been? The part in red perfectly illustrates a point - you assume a conspiracy and then see everything in that light.

And then, of course, the Dallas Police's most unfortunate loss of the alleged assassin, murdered by a man who just happened to arrive on the scene at just the right, unannounced, moment in order to be able to make sure that the man who claimed to be a patsy didn't get a chance to defend himself in a trial.

A man who just 4 minutes before the murder of Oswald was in the Western Union office posting money to a dancer? A man who would have missed seeing Oswald if Oswald hadn’t requested a sweater? A man who according to everyone than knew him was utterly distraught after Kennedy’s death to the point of being unbalanced?

Of course there was a conspiracy - and everyone on the Warren Commission knew it, but only a minority were prepared to admit it.

There is no evidence of conspiracy. Not a shred. But an absolutely mountain of evidence against Oswald which in any court of law on the planet would a got a guilty charge. A conspiracy isn’t just unlikely, it was absolutely impossible. It couldn’t have happened. Any conspirators that would have attempted this plan in this way and with all that was required would have been certifiable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Plenty of important witnesses were not called by the Warren Commission.

Jack Ruby practically had to beg to be allowed to testify.

Why?

No he didn’t.

He pleaded for a lie detector so that he could prove that he acted alone. And he openly stated, unequivocally that he acted alone. The man was paranoid and thought that people were thinking that he was part of a Jewish conspiracy.

[FISHY1118]

Must have missed this. I don't recall seeing any evidence of this nature, just misguided thinking and erroneous conclusions being reached, mainly parroting nonsense that was clearly wrong.

Well I disagree with your thinking.
George showed plenty of that evidence that was clearly right.

It was mostly ignored.

It was the WC that was misguided and wrong.

[FISHY1118]

Just to be clear about one thing: some of the Commission members rejected the Single Bullet Theory, as did Governor Connally.

That means they realised that there was more than one gunman and, consequently, a conspiracy.

Once you realise there was a conspiracy, certain things such as the empty cartridge cases being found conveniently in such a way as to incriminate Oswald, and Oswald's practically unusable Carcano, and his claim that he was a patsy, start to make sense.

And then, of course, the Dallas Police's most unfortunate loss of the alleged assassin, murdered by a man who just happened to arrive on the scene at just the right, unannounced, moment of Oswald's transfer, in order to be able to make sure that the man who claimed to be a patsy didn't get a chance to defend himself in a trial.

Of course there was a conspiracy - and everyone on the Warren Commission knew it, but only a minority were prepared to admit it.

Totally agree