JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

Brennan wasn’t looking from that position. That’s a view from someone standing below. Brennan wasn’t looking across the road. So he sees someone moving around before the shots then again when the shots are occurring and it’s all a mistake? And the person that he mistakenly describes just happens to look like Oswald. Come on George. Brennan saw Oswald. Absolutely no doubt. Others saw him too.

Brennan was sitting below, on the opposite side of the road.

Brennan's first statement:
I was facing in a northerly direction looking across not only at Elm Street but I could see the largered brick building across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window.




Which is the "red brick building"?

No one saw "Oswald". Brennan didn't pick him out of a line-up. Others saw people on the sixth floor, some of them saw more than one, but none could identify Oswald as a person they saw.

[Fiver]

Warren Commission XXII:CE 1205..Dallas Sheriff on Ruby and prostitution

Lets look at Warren Commission XXII:CE 1205.

Jerry Feingold interview - "RUBY was described as a "nice fellow" who did not associate with any of the known hoodlums in Chicago's West Side."

How about Lets look at Warren Commission XXII:CE 1206.

Theodore Shulman interview - "RUBENSTEIN had no connections with the organized criminal or hoodlum element."

[cobalt]

I did ask earlier why if the home life was so toxic it produced one brother whose judgment is considered valuable (it agrees largely with the WC) and another whose is not.

The answer supplied was that not everyone reacts the same to their environment, to which it is hard to disagree. So why were the WC so keen on examining the entrails of LHO's earlier life if it was not unique? As a distraction I would suggest, an attempt to steer public attention towards social and psychological motivation. There is a Doppler Effect in reverse where the WC is concerned. We have clear, largely uncontested records from Oswald's boyhood, but the nearer we get to the assassination the vaguer and more indistinct everything becomes. This ends up with the WC unable to offer a credible motivation for a man who shot the President.

Whatever an assassin's psychology or social position he knows that the shooting of a Head of State will be perceived as a political act. Most of the world assumed this on 22 November 1963. Most Americans, whether they believe Oswald guilty or not, think the same. There had to be a political motivation underlying the act; but by denying that obvious truth the WC opened themselves up to criticism which remains to this day. If anything I think that criticism has intensified.

[Fiver]

Ruby knew Trafficante from his days in Chicago. He visited Trafficante in Tresconia Prison in 1959 where Castro had locked him up. Ruby also shipped guns to Lewis McWillie who was Trafficante's former Manager of the Tropicana in Havana. The HSCA concluded Ruby was a MOB courier.

We're still waiting for you to provide evidence for any of these claims.

[Fiver]

He also manages to get from the sixth floor to the second floor without being seen or heard by the men on the fifth floor....

There is clear evidence that someone was firing from the 6th floor sniper's nest. The three men on the fifth floor heard it. To them we can add the statements of Robert Jackson, Malcom Couch, James Crawford, Mrs Earle Cabell, James Worrell, Amos Euins, and Howard Brennan.

If you don't believe that was Oswald, the 6th floor shooter has to make it down to the first floor and out of the building undetected, which is significantly farther than Oswald has to make it.

....the woman on the fourth floor or the two women going down the stairs at the same time.

There were four women on the 4th floor, two of went downstairs shortly afterwards. Not-Oswald has to avoid detection by them as well.

If Victoria Adam's time estimate is correct, she needed to run across the 4th floor and down four flights of stairs in 60 seconds while wearing 3 inch heels. This seems unlikely. Her own testimony contradicts her time estimate - when she reached the ground floor, she encountered Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady, but they both testified they didn't enter the building until significantly after Roy Truly and Officer Baker did.

[Fiver]

Interesting to see Robert Oswald quoted as a reliable source from Fiver who in his previous post said that the Oswald household was 'toxic' due to an uninterested/overindulgent mother.

Lee Harvey Oswald grew up in a toxic environment. Here's his half-brother, John Pic.

Mr. JENNER - His, enlistment, when you learned about it, and how. He enlisted in October 1956. He was then 17 years old.
Mr. PIC - My mother told me some way or another, I don't remember, sir. This is how I learned about it, either by phone call or by letter or some way. Of course, I knew he would do it as soon as he reached the age.
Mr. JENNER - All right. Why did you know he would do it and tell us the circumstances upon which you, the facts upon which you base that observation?
Mr. PIC - He did it for the same reasons that I did it and Robert did it, I assume, to get from out and under.
Mr. JENNER - Out and under what?
Mr. PIC - The yoke of oppression from my mother.

[Fiver]

Here's the FBI photo of the evidence found on the sixth floor of the TSBD:




Photo trumps eyewitnesses - "Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence". That's settled, only two shots fired through the Carcano. Or were these the cases from the Mauser?

Your picture is irrelevant. That is a photo of some of the evidence that the FBI received, not all of the evidence found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. We have photos of the rifle taken before it was moved. We have press motion pictures of the rifle being carried across the 6th floor and still photos taken as it was brought outside. We have photos of the three expelled shell cases taken on site. We have photos of the sniper's nest, showing the ways the boxes were laid out. We don't have photos of the paper bag before it was moved, which was a significant error by the Dallas police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess the 2 FBI Agents that saw the back wound at Bethesda are wrong..

Anyone that says that there was a large wound in the back of Kennedy’s head is either lying or they are mistaken. In the majority of cases I would suggest the latter.

Humans are fallible. Autopsy photos, x-rays, the Zapruder film and the 3 pathologists who were doing the autopsy cannot have been wrong or lying. It’s impossible.

[Patrick Differ]

I guess the 2 FBI Agents that saw the back wound at Bethesda are wrong. By 2005 their story had not changed. Specter kept them from the Warren Commission. Not clear what motive Sibert and O Neil would have to make a story up, especially in this case? Plus Humes never bothered to trace it. The SBT, not meeting the legal Standard of Proof would have been thrown out.

Then there is the issue of one bullet that hits bone and fragments and one that miraculously does not.

Knott is credible Herlock and you just do not like the answer or possibility you are actually wrong. Sure they could be wrong but just saying it does not make it so.

[Fiver]

Your post goes beyond deceptive into the area of lying. The presenter at the two minute mark says "once you chamber the last round, the clip is supposed to fall free". At around the 2:50 minute mark he chambers the last round and the clip falls out , as he (and I) said. Do you hope that no one will check your links, or do you just not know the difference between chambering and firing?

Do you always assume that anytime someone makes a mistake that they are deliberately lying? I misunderstood what you were saying and badly worded my response.

Getting back to your original statement.

A design feature of the Carcano was that the ammo clip fell out of the rifle when the last round was loaded into the chamber, so Oswald presumably also takes the trouble to retrieve the clip and replace it in the rifle without getting finger prints on the clip, but not not take the trouble to pick up the incriminating shell casings which should have ejected behind him rather than way out in front of his position at the window.

The ammo clip (CE575) was still in the rifle so the most likely explanation is that it failed to eject. (There's an example of this happening at around 4:25 in this video.)
The idea that Oswald or anyone else would pick up the ejected clip and reinsert it makes no sense.

The Warren Commission studied the cartridge ejection patterns.

"The cartridge cases showed considerable ricochet after their initial landing, bouncing from 8 inches to 15 feet. The location of the cartridge cases was therefore consistent with the southeast window having been used by the assassin, since if the assassin fired from that window the ejected cartridge cases would have hit the pile of boxes at his back and ricocheted between the boxes and the wall until they came to rest to the west of the window."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Knott Lab is wrong. Categorically wrong. They have to be wrong because all the shots came from behind.

Three shots, fired by Oswald. All else is fantasy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You mean from this perspective?:



Not lying......mistaken.

Brennan wasn’t looking from that position. That’s a view from someone standing below. Brennan wasn’t looking across the road. So he sees someone moving around before the shots then again when the shots are occurring and it’s all a mistake? And the person that he mistakenly describes just happens to look like Oswald. Come on George. Brennan saw Oswald. Absolutely no doubt. Others saw him too.

[Patrick Differ]

Fiver i guess you aren't paying attention. Well catalogued in Chokeholds- names, places, events...plus their sources

[Fiver]

How many Oswalds types did the CIA set up with the same scenario as Dallas? High powered rifle from a tall building?
Try Chicago, Tampa, Miami, LA, and San Antonio. And they all had chosen Patsys from the FPCC, and like Oswald, were from the military.

Your entire post is stated as fact, yet you continue to provide no evidence for any of your claims.

[FrankO]

Please forgive me if I am mis-understanding, but you appear to be saying that since no one can see what is happening behind the sign, it can't be known that they weren't aligned at that time - so Knott Lab is wrong and the SBT is right?

Hi George,

I’m not necessarily saying that Knott Lab is wrong and SBT is right. What I am saying is that:
- the frame Knott used to base their conclusion on, frame 225, is a frame in which the president is already reacting to being hit, and so, it’s not a good frame.
- in frame 223, the frame just before Connally starts reacting (whether to being hit or only hearing a shot), Connally’s turned more to his right and, therefore, possibly correctly aligned for the SB.
And, yes, it can’t be known that they weren’t aligned when they were behind the sign, nor that they were, although it seems that Connally disappeared behind the sign in more or less the same position as he reappeared from behind it, in frame 222.

You have previously cited Connally's lapel eversion at frame 224 as evidence of the SBT, but this occurred after the point that you are now saying Kennedy may have been hit, and the hole in the front of Connally's suit is nowhere near the lapel. Have you noticed that just after that frame Connally appear to "swat" at something on his left side with his hat?

I have conceded that the lapel movement may have been caused by a gust of wind, as you suggested, although I’d find that a bit coincidental, seeing that that’s not the only thing happening between frames 223 and 231. The more important things – in my view – are that:
- he seems to pull up (shrug) his shoulders, especially his left, which he moves back at the same time
- he seems to slide down somewhat (his head is clearly lower by frame 229 than in 226 and before that)
- he moves down his right shoulder as if he’s been stung in the side between frames 226/227 and 229/230
Whilst he’s doing all that, he’s also moving his hat up & down, but I don’t particularly have the impression that he’s ‘swatting’ at something to his left.

Connally said he turned to the right and was hit as he turned back to the left and was almost facing forward. As I understand your theory, you are saying that at frame 225 he has already completed the described procedure, having turned right and back to the left without it being seen because he was behind the sign.

That is because between frames 224 and 231 is the only time Connally can be seen turning to his left. So, an idea of mine was that this turn to look over his right shoulder (which he can’t be seen doing in frames 222 & 223) was before that, behind the sign (or even before that).

But I then see him repeat this procedure without showing the distress of having been shot through the chest, the wrist and the thigh apart from a slight grimace as he commences the turn.

We see him making a very clear and extreme turn to look over his right shoulder, yes, but we don’t see him turning back to his left. Instead, he leans back into his wife’s lap.

So, while the extreme look over his right shoulder corresponds with Connally’s statements, the latter part clearly doesn’t.

When Connally viewed the Zapruder film I believe, from memory, that he identified around frame 234 as when he was hit - not a win for either of our theories but a contradiction of the SBT.

True enough, but I don’t find that a problem, as memory isn’t a recording machine. But even if he was only hit around frame 234, he still held onto his hat until at least frame 279.

Now, I've got to go and finish (writing) my 2nd book! This JFK business is taking up too much of my time.

All the best,
Frank