JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

I don't see how you can substantiate the above statement.

Either Oswald was lying or Norman, Jarman, West, Arce, and Dougherty were lying.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I never suggested that Hoover joined the conspiracy just in order to get an extension of tenure.

Richard Nixon related that Hoover told him that although LBJ disliked JFK, he really hated RFK.

The conspirators had practical motives for wanting to see both JFK and RFK removed from office, but they were also motivated by resentment and hatred.

It is well-known that Hoover hated the Kennedys - RFK in particular - which explains his remark to Nixon.

Is it so farfetched to suggest that Allen Dulles had a resentment against JFK not only on account of the failure of the planned invasion of Cuba but because he fired him as director of the CIA?

Leading Mafiosi declared their hatred for the Kennedy brothers and their eagerness to see RFK neutered - because of his war on an organised crime whose existence Hoover denied - and JFK murdered.

There had been collaboration between the CIA and mafia in assassination plots and two leading Mafiosi died violent deaths while waiting to testify on such collaboration.

Is it farfetched to suggest that a group of men, including LBJ, Hoover, Dulles (and friends at the CIA), and Mafiosi, plotted to murder JFK and thereby end his brother's political power?

Is it not significant that following JFK's murder, LBJ extended Hoover's tenure and appointed Dulles to sit on the Warren Commission?

[FISHY1118]

Hoover had LBJ installed as VP .

[cobalt]

‘Connally testified that LBJ wasn't part of the planning and was annoyed at not being in the loop. LBJ only found out the cities and the itineraries after other people decided them. A Conspiracy would have had one more day to plan than Oswald had.’

I would disagree with that claim. Dallas was announced as a city on the itinerary on 25^th September. The decision to arrange a motorcade was made on 4^th October. (Both these dates predate Oswald being employed at the TSBD.) The Trade Mart was confirmed as the venue on 14^th November although it had been mooted since 4^th November.

‘Have a second shooter is a massive self-imposed blunder if the Conspiracy is trying to pin the crime on an individual.’

The LG theory was not part of the conspiracy as has been suggested by me several times. The LG theory was a political choice after the fact.

‘Either Oswald was lying or Norman, Jarman, West, Arce, and Dougherty were lying.’

Norman and Jarman said they did not recall seeing Oswald in the Domino Room just before 12.25. By some weird process Oswald seemed to know they had passed through. The other three ate their lunch around 12 noon in the Domino Room but if Oswald ate his lunch in the Lunch Room (as recorded in his interrogation) then they would not have seen him obviously.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I would anticipate that the rifle using a sabot to adapt a different calibre would have a reduced accuracy. My experience with the French Unique .22 rifle, which had a reputation for accuracy, was that the silencer had no effect on its accuracy.

With regard to the pillars, I did not explain properly. There were pillars on the top of the overpass:



This pillar is at the southern end of the overpass and provides a solid rifle rest out of the view of those watching the parade in the centre of the overpass. It provides this view of Elm St:



Just three feet from this position is a pathway leading down to the carpark behind the Post Office:


From this location a gunman could track the Limousine in Main St and be in position as the vehicle turned into Elm Street. Using a suppressed rifle he would be neither seen nor heard and could quickly escape down the leafy pathway. As you say, this position would line up with the tie and the shirt, and the hole in the windscreen.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Thanks for clearing up what you meant by ‘pillars’. That makes more sense. If there ever was a shot from that direction, I would suggest it would have come from somewhere between (give or take a little) the blue lines on the image below.



What I’m not sure about is if the angle (from a horizontal line) would have lined up with a shot from there. From what I’ve looked at, it seems to me that a straight line from the tie knot to the crack in the windscreen must have been a close to horizontal line, certainly with the limousine on a slightly downward slope, as the photo below shows. Although, obviously, I can’t dismiss the possibility out of hand.



What I would say is that it wouldn’t have been an ideal place from where to take a shot at the president, as the picture below shows. It would not have been a guaranteed unobstructed shot and would depend on a lot of luck for nothing or nobody to be in the way of a clear shot at the right moment. Compared to that, a shot from the back was a piece of cake.


Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

I have quoted from the WC transcript where she agrees that Tippit's killer had slightly bushy hair.

You ignoring facts doesn't make them go away. Helen Markham denied ever describing the man's hair as bushy.

All this shows is the lengths Mark Lane would do to try to manipulate witnesses,

A description of someone wearing a white shirt and a white jacket is not a match for Oswald at all.

No one identified Oswald by his jacket.

Walker's description was a close match of the Dispatcher's description and Baker's description.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.

And whose hair did Oswald's hair look curlier than?

Couldn't tell from the quote?And the fact that I linked a picture of David Belin?

Mr. BELIN. You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES. He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.

She did.

It is a fact.

Anyone can see her saying so in a filmed interview on YouTube.

Transcripts of the unedited video show Mark Lane was good at manipulating witnesses and selective editing to provide a false view of witness testimony.

[Fiver]

You have uploaded the same recording that I uploaded here previously!

The jacket is obviously grey and I cannot see how it could be described as tan.

This is the jacket allegedly worn by the murderer who, according to some witnesses, wore a dark jacket and also, according to some witnesses, wore a sport jacket.

According to Barbara Jeanette Davis, the murderer wore a dark sport jacket.

Does that seem like the discarded jacket?

I've already linked articles that show he same color can look radically different depending on light levels and the color of surrounding objects. I've already provided evidence that some people who knew Oswald described his hair as blond. I've already provided evidence of a witness who percieved Oswald as having dark or blond hair depending on if they saw him on TV or in a photograph.

You ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

The jacket was identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband. As you should know form the half-a-dozen times that it's been mentioned in posts you replied to.

So either it was Oswald's jacket or his own wife was part of a Conspiracy to frame her husband.

And there is no reason for a Conspiracy to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I've already linked articles that show he same color can look radically different depending on light levels and the color of surrounding objects. I've already provided evidence that some people who knew Oswald described his hair as blond. I've already provided evidence of a witness who percieved Oswald as having dark or blond hair depending on if they saw him on TV or in a photograph.

The problem with your argument is that you can have a blond Oswald in Mexico and a dark Oswald shooting Tippit.

Oswald will always be guilty.

You ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

Using punchlines is not a substitute for reasoned argument.

The jacket was identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband. As you should know form the half-a-dozen times that it's been mentioned in posts you replied to.

If you are referring to the jacket that was allegedly discarded by Oswald after he allegedly shot Tippit, you should know that Frazier said that he never saw Oswald wearing that jacket.

So either it was Oswald's jacket or his own wife was part of a Conspiracy to frame her husband.

His wife was pressured into testifying against him.

If she really believes what she testified against him, why would she now be adamant that he was innocent?

And there is no reason for a Conspiracy to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder.

There obviously was.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

You ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

You do not have a monopoly on facts.

Helen Markham denied ever describing the man's hair as bushy.

Helen Markham denied that her own voice was on a recording when even the Warren Commission accepted it was.

She denied ever talking to Mark Lane when the Warren Commission accepted that she had.

She did describe the man's hair as slightly bushy, as is confirmed by the Warren Commission transcript.

All this shows is the lengths Mark Lane would do to try to manipulate witnesses,

Helen Markham could have told Lane that the man's hair was not at all bushy.

She did not.

She said it was slightly bushy.


No one identified Oswald by his jacket.

The problem is that four witnesses, including Helen Markham, were definite that the 'discarded' jacket was not the one they saw the killer wearing.

If they could not identify the grey jacket as the one worn by the killer, then the identification of it by Marina Oswald is a red herring.

If the identification evidence does not point to Oswald, then he is innocent.

And the evidence about the jacket is part of the identification evidence.

You can't pick and choose which evidence you consider to be important.


Walker's description was a close match of the Dispatcher's description and Baker's description.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

Oswald is alleged to have worn a grey jacket, not a brown jacket.

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Oswald did not wear a white jacket nor a white shirt.

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

But they are not descriptions of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

None of the dozen or so witnesses to the Tippit shooting described the killer's hair as blond.

How do you explain that?

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.

They are not close matches.


Couldn't tell from the quote?And the fact that I linked a picture of David Belin?

Mr. BELIN. You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair?
Mr. BENAVIDES. He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.

Oswald did not have curly hair.

Tippit's killer obviously had different hair from Oswald's.

Transcripts of the unedited video show Mark Lane was good at manipulating witnesses and selective editing to provide a false view of witness testimony.

Both Markham and Clemons said that Tippit's murderer had slightly bushy or bushy hair and it is in the Warren Commission's own transcript.

[Fiver]

I think my arguments have merit and if no-one agreed with me then I would not receive any upvotes or commendations.

Truth is not a popularity contest.

Your nonsensical misrepresentation of the lone gunman theory is a strawman that no one believes. The fact that you try to present it as the Lone Gunman Theory shows how weak your own theory is.

IT WAS.

It had to be rebuilt!

Feel free to provide any evidence that Oswald's sight was defective or that it had to be rebuilt.

Besides, Oswald's shooting records in the Marines showed he was capable of making shots at longer distances than JFK was without using a scope.

His record does not show that he was capable of shooting through someone's cervical vertebrae and two people - all with one bullet.

Bullet penetration has nothing to do with the skill of the shooter.

There are examples of a single bullet going through two people. One is the Alec Baldwin shooting, where a single pistol bullet went through the chest pf cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and struck director Joel Souza in the shoulder.

Eyewitness testimony, both shortly after the assassination and during the autopsy, the autopsy diagrams, the FBI report on the holes in both Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and Kennedy's official death certificate, all place the wound in Kennedy's back at roughly six inches below the neckline.

That evidence is conclusive.

* Autopsy evidence shows JFK was not shot 6" below the neckline.

That is not true.

A bullet entering Kennedy's back at a downward angle could not have exited his throat, let alone hit Connally in the back.

* Modern computer modelling of the actual positions and forensics testing with Carcanos show it was possible for a single bullet to hit JFK's upper back, exit his throat, and strike Connally inflicting the wounds he took.

You ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

Some of the photographic evidence is fake.

* Photographic evidence and x-rays show Kennedy was shot once in the head from the back.

Feel free to show evidence that any of the photographic evidence was faked.

I have lost count of the number of witnesses who have said that there was a huge hole in the back right of Kennedy's head - including Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who testified also that he saw a big piece of the missing part of the skull in the back of the limousine, and about a dozen doctors at Parkland Hospital.

Clint Hill said that JFK was struck in the back of the head and that the large opening in the right of his skull was an exit wound. I have linked multiple videos of Hill saying this.

You repeating false statements about what Hill said does not make them true.

[Photographs or drawings showing the right back of Kennedy's head intact have obviously been faked.

[/B]

X-rays show JFK only a small entry wound in the back of JFK's skull.
Autopsy photos show the back of JFK's head was relatively intact.
Still photos taken right after JFK was shot show the back of JFK's head was relatively intact.
The Zapruder films shows the back of JFK's head was relatively intact.

There is no evidence that any of them were faked.

Two experts found fragments from two separate bullets in Kennedy's skull x-rays.

The same x-rays you insisted were faked?

X-rays of the skull can't tell you that. The bullet fragments have to be forensically analyzed after being removed from the body. They were and forensics testing showed that all of the bullet fragments in JFK's skull came from a single bullet.

The X-rays also show JFK's head was struck by a single bullet from the rear.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Feel free to provide any evidence that Oswald's sight was defective or that it had to be rebuilt.

I don't need to.

It is well-known and you are the only person I have come across who has disputed it.



Bullet penetration has nothing to do with the skill of the shooter.

There are examples of a single bullet going through two people. One is the Alec Baldwin shooting, where a single pistol bullet went through the chest pf cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and struck director Joel Souza in the shoulder.

Can you give an example of a bullet passing through someone's cervical vertebrae and then hitting someone else?



* Modern computer modelling of the actual positions and forensics testing with Carcanos show it was possible for a single bullet to hit JFK's upper back, exit his throat, and strike Connally inflicting the wounds he took.

You ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.

You cannot produce evidence that a bullet entering someone's back at a downward angle could then exit the front of his throat.

You cannot do so because it is impossible.



* Photographic evidence and x-rays show Kennedy was shot once in the head from the back.

Feel free to show evidence that any of the photographic evidence was faked.

I already have.



Clint Hill said that JFK was struck in the back of the head and that the large opening in the right of his skull was an exit wound. I have linked multiple videos of Hill saying this.

You repeating false statements about what Hill said does not make them true.

I resent your allegation that I am repeating false statements.

I quoted verbatim from Clint Hill's testimony.



The same x-rays you insisted were faked?

I did not insist anything of the kind.

[Fiver]

I never suggested that Hoover joined the conspiracy just in order to get an extension of tenure.

It's the only motive you have given for Hoover participating in a plot to kill JFK.

The conspirators had practical motives for wanting to see both JFK and RFK removed from office, but they were also motivated by resentment and hatred.

RFK wasn't removed from office. LBJ kept on the whole Cabinet, including RFK.

And you still haven't provided an practical reason for any of the people you accuse of plotting to kill JFK to kill him.

Is it so farfetched to suggest that Allen Dulles had a resentment against JFK not only on account of the failure of the planned invasion of Cuba but because he fired him as director of the CIA?

Allen Dulles wasn't head of the CIA in 1963.

John McCone was the head of the CIA. He had been appointed by JFK. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by being involved in a plot to kill JFK. He had everything to gain by revealing a plot to murder JFK. And he resigned from the CIA in 1965 - an act of absolute madness for anyone who needed to keep a murder plot secret.

Leading Mafiosi declared their hatred for the Kennedy brothers and their eagerness to see RFK neutered - because of his war on an organised crime whose existence Hoover denied - and JFK murdered.

But RFK wasn't neutered by JFK's assassination - LBJ kept RFK on as Attorney General.

And the Mob had a track record of murdering any of their own people who want to murder prosecutors. Read about Bugsy Seigel, who the Mob rubbed out for wanting to kill Dewey. Any mobster who tried to kill President Kennedy would have been immediately murdered by the rest of the Mob as a matter of self-preservation.

There had been collaboration between the CIA and mafia in assassination plots and two leading Mafiosi died violent deaths while waiting to testify on such collaboration.

Those men were murdered over a decade after JFK was murdered and they were going to testify about CIA plots against Castro. And they'd been ripping off the Mob.

Is it farfetched to suggest that a group of men, including LBJ, Hoover, Dulles (and friends at the CIA), and Mafiosi, plotted to murder JFK and thereby end his brother's political power?

It's completely non-sensical.

Killing JFK didn't end RFK's political power. LBJ kept RFK on as Attorney General, which makes no sense if LBJ was part of the Conspiracy.

Is it not significant that following JFK's murder, LBJ extended Hoover's tenure and appointed Dulles to sit on the Warren Commission?

The next President could have revoked LBJ's giving Hoover an exemption on retirement. There is there motive there.

LBJ put Dulles on the Commission, he didn't put Dulles in charge of it.

Lets look at LBJ.
* LBJ didn't pick who did the autopsy om JFK.
* LBJ didn't put Dulles in charge of the investigation.
* LBJ didn't remove Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General.
* LBJ pushed harder for Civil Rights and containment of Communism than JFK had.
* LBJ made it clear he did not agree with the Single Bullet Theory.

Yet LBJ is supposed to be not just part of, but a leader in this Conspiracy?

[Fiver]

Hoover had LBJ installed as VP .

Not even close.

JFK asked LBJ because he needed Southern Democrats to win. Hoover had nothing to do with it.

[Fiver]

There obviously was.

There was no reason for the Conspiracy to frame Oswald for killing Tippit.

You haven't even attempted to provide a reason, let alone a reason that makes sense.

[cobalt]

'There was no reason for the Conspiracy to frame Oswald for killing Tippit'

There certainly was, in fact two reasons have been put forward. Firstly it established Oswald in the public mind as a killer by mid afternoon on the 22nd November. There was no evidence clearly linking him to the JFK assassination at that time. Second, DPD officers apprehending Oswald -the presumed cop killer- would be likely to shoot on sight and remove him as a problem.

I would acknowledge one thing: that Oswald- if it was indeed him- had a far greater motive to shoot Tippit than he ever did JFK. He realised he had been set up as a 'patsy' and would be very nervous about anyone who approached him. But the timings are all in favour of Oswald not being at the scene- the one thing Helen Markham is liable to have got correct is her daily routine to catch a bus to work. Earlene Roberts' testimony is usually accepted by all parties. Add in nobody seeing Oswald on his journey from the rooming house alongside the testimony of Burroughs and Davis from the cinema and Oswald seems to have been elsewhere.