JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

There is a very interesting discussion here on the backyard photos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhM...l=firstlightvideo

Of particular interest are the finding of the WC expert Lyndal L Shaneyfelt. He concluded that the photos were taken by the camera said to belong to Oswald, but added that "he could not positively identify the rifle in the photos as the same rifle held by the FBI as the assassination weapon".

Here is the advertisement for the weapon Oswald allegedly ordered:


Note the sling rings:



Note that the sling rings in the photos are in the same position:





Here is the alleged murder weapon with the sling rings on the side of the stock:



Possible conclusions?

1. The photos are genuine and Oswald is holding the rifle that he ordered, with the sling rings underneath the stock, not on the side of the stock as shown on the murder weapon.

2. The photos were composites using the rifle that was ordered under the name of A Hidell and sent to Oswald's P.O. Box, with the sling rings underneath the stock, not on the side of the stock as shown on the murder weapon.

Either way, the rifle shown in these photos is not the alleged murder weapon.

Oswald's application for the P.O. Box shows that he was the only one authorised to collect goods from that Box.


Any goods sent to that Box to a different person would have been returned marked "Return to Sender".


However, Hoover had knowledge of this P.O. Box and attributed the pickup of the rifle to a woman named A Hidell.



This affidavit appears to be addressing the fibres allegedly found. It is not easy to decipher but it appears to conclude that there was no match, contrary to what the WC claimed.

AFFIDAVIT OF PAUL MORGAN STOMBAUGH
The following affidavit was executed by Paul Morgan Stombaugh on September 4, 1964.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT
PRDSIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
DIBTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 88:
Paul Morgan Stombaugh, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This affidavit is made at the request of the President’s Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy, for the purpose of supplementing the
testimony I gave before the Commission concerning certain hairs and fibers
I examined.
2. The principal characteristics of cotton fibers used for comparison purport%
are color and shade; and degree of twist. Of these, color and shade are by far
the most significant. The principal characteristics of viscose used for comparison purposes are color and shade, diameter, and size and distribution of
delusterlng agent.
3. The orangeyellow and grey-black cotton fibers in the shirt, Commission
Exhibit 150, were respectively of uniform shades; the dark blue cotton fibers in
the shirt were of three different shades. All the fibers in the shirt were mercerized, and of a substantially uniform twist.
4. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142,
varied in shade, but were of a uniform twist. The brown viscose fibers in the
blanket, Commission Exhibit 140, varied in diameter, shade, size, and distribution
of delustering agent.
5. Stombaugh Exhibits l-6 consist of the following items :
(a) Stombaugh Exhibit 1 consists of the hairs I found on the blanket, Commission Exhibit 140.
(b) Stombaugh Exhibit 2 consists of the known sample of Lee Harvey Oswald’s
hairs sent to me by the Dallas Office of the FBI.
(c) Stombaugh Exhibit 3 consists of the fibers I found in the paper bag,
Commission Exhibit 142.
(d) Stombaugh Exhibit 4 consists of a sample of fibers from the blanket,
Commission Exhibit 140.
(e) Stombaugh Exhibit 5 consists of the fibers I found on the rifle, Commission
Exhibit 139.
(f) Stombaugh Exhibit 6 consists of a sample of fibers from the shirt, Commission Exhibit 150.
Signed this 4th day of September, 1964.
(S) Paul Morgan Stombaugh,

[FISHY1118]

[Fiver]

It does seem that Tippit was looking for somebody. The GLOCO sightings are very reliable since they were made by people who knew him, at a time when Tippit was misreporting his location.

The GLOCO sighting is highly suspect.

The GLOCO station was nowhere near where Tippit lived. The GLOCO station was nowhere near Tippit's normal patrol route. Yet supposedly, the GLOCO employees not only recognized Tippit, they knew his name.

Shortly after JFK was shot, Al Volkland was on the median of the Stemmons Freeway, taking a picture of the Presidential lino speeding to Parkland Hospital. Volkland was a professional photographer with his own studio, Accident Photo Services. According to the supposed sighting, he doesn't drive to his studio to develop the picture. He doesn't go to Parkland to get more pictures. He doesn't go to the nearest gas station. His route to the GLOCO station requires Volkland to drive past or through Dealey plaza without stopping to take more pictures. Once he gets to the GLOCO station, rather than talk to Tippit, a supposed friend, about the photo Volkland just took of the limo or about the assassination, Volkland just sits and watches Tippet for 10 minutes.

At 12;45 Tippit was at Kiest and Bonnie View, miles away from the GLOCO station. There is no reason to doubt that.

I would tend to accept the Top Ten Record sightings as well, which are relevant in so far as Tippit did not wish to use his police radio since he wanted to use their phone.

The Top Ten Records sighting is also highly suspect. They claim that Tippit would occasionally use their phone while on duty, but the record store was miles way from Tippit's patrol area.

They also said 10 minutes after Tippet was in the store, they heard on the radio that Tippit had been shot. But the Tippit murder wasn't announced on the radio until 1:26 PM

Again from witness testimony, there is no indication that Tippit saw any threat from his first encounter with the pedestrian. This clearly changed at some point. For me it resembles the Skripal poisoning in the UK: a rendez-vous or a pre-arranged handover of materials that goes wrong and has to be covered up, except we don't know which side the victim was actually on.

How could it possibly be pre-arranged? Tippit had been re-assigned well outside his regular patrol area and there were no cell phones.

[cobalt]

'The GLOCO station was nowhere near Tippit's normal patrol route. Yet supposedly, the GLOCO employees not only recognized Tippit, they knew his name.'

There is a considerable amount of witness testimony which supports Tippit very often being outside outside his patrol route. When this was brought to the attention of a supervisor after Tippit's murder, the explanation given was that Tippit 'liked to drive around a lot.' Which rather defeats the point of having established patrol routes in the first place.

I can see no reason why the GLOCO employees would claim to recognise a man they did not know. Inventing a lie about a police car being in their forecourt seems pointless as well, which is exactly what other witnesses decided to do as well? And we know there was only one police car in the area at that time, the one being driven by Tippit.

'At 12;45 Tippit was at Kiest and Bonnie View, miles away from the GLOCO station. There is no reason to doubt that.'

There obviously is, in respect of witnesses who stated they saw him at the GLOCO station at that time. Until witness statements emerge (and they would have to be from people who actually knew Tippit) which confirm Tippit being at Kiest and Bonnie at 12.45, then the evidence points to Tippit lying about his actual position when he was sitting outside the GLOCO station.

Persons who never saw Oswald before in their life are regarded as sound witnesses in respect of the Tippit shooting, despite the obvious fear and confusion which must have existed. Yet witnesses who knew Tippit and were merely observing him while going about their everyday activities are deemed dishonest or unreliable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This affidavit appears to be addressing the fibres allegedly found. It is not easy to decipher but it appears to conclude that there was no match, contrary to what the WC claimed.

... because the colours of the fibres found in the bag and the blanket did not match those of Oswald's shirt?

[GBinOz]

... because the colours of the fibres found in the bag and the blanket did not match those of Oswald's shirt?

He appears to be saying that the fibres found in the bag don't match those from the shirt or the blanket.

[Fiver]

This in an interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTPHcsG-N8&ab_channel=Curiousitive%21

It contains news video from the time concerning the Oswald wallet found at the scene of Tippit's murder - or was it?

Cheers, George

There's some interesting photos in that video.

1:07 - Oswald being brought out of the theater. His hair looks slightly curly in comparison to the police office with the cigar.

1:18 - I could see someone describing Oswald's hair as bushy.

1:26 - Oswald mug shot. Again, I can see how Some might describe Oswald's hair as bushy.

1:52 - It's clear that when Oswald's hair isn't combed, it can look curly.

2:12 - Again, I can see someone describing Oswald's hair as slightly curly in this picture.

5:55 - "Police Lineup" - This is not the actual police lineup. It is the picture of Oswald from 1:18 photoedited together with Commission Exhibit 1064, which shows the other three men in the first lineup. In the actual lineup, the four men were handcuffed together and none of them were dressed they way they were in the "Police lineup" shown in the video. Oswald was still wearing his brown short. William Perry took off his coat and tie, unbuttoned his short, and put on a brown sports coat. Richard Clark also took off his coat and time, unbuttoned his coat, and put on a red vest. Don Ables was wearing white shirt and a gray button-up sweater. (CE 745)

At which point I stopped watching. If the video is willing to falsify the police lineup, why should I trust anything that they say?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There's some interesting photos in that video.

1:07 - Oswald being brought out of the theater. His hair looks slightly curly in comparison to the police office with the cigar.

1:18 - I could see someone describing Oswald's hair as bushy.

1:26 - Oswald mug shot. Again, I can see how Some might describe Oswald's hair as bushy.

1:52 - It's clear that when Oswald's hair isn't combed, it can look curly.

2:12 - Again, I can see someone describing Oswald's hair as slightly curly in this picture.

You are, I believe, the first person ever to have described Oswald's hair as curly or bushy, let alone both, and I would imagine that you will also be the last.

[GBinOz]

At which point I stopped watching. If the video is willing to falsify the police lineup, why should I trust anything that they say?

AFAIK this was the first lineup, and when Oswald complained, for obvious reasons, they made the adjustments to which you refer.

[GBinOz]

Here are a couple of photos from the re-enactment done by Robert Frazier a few days after the assassination. It was done by co-ordinating all the available movie films taken during the assassination, and taking photos through the telescopic sight on the actual Carcano rifle set up on the TSBD 6th floor. It was NOT a computer animation.





The first is labelled as being when the car is hidden behind the Freeway sign in the Zapruder film, supposedly about when Kennedy and Connolly are hit according to the Single Bullet Theory. Note the 40 degree angle, the controversial angle for Kennedy's back wound proposed by Humes. Also note the positions and alignment of Kennedy and Connolly, and then try to justify the Single Bullet Theory. If the re-enactment is to be accorded any credibility, this appears to be about when Kennedy's back wound occurred, but clearly the shot could not have exited the President's throat, and could not have also hit Connolly above his right armpit

The second is labelled as Frame 249, long after the SBT is claimed to have hit both men. The alignment still doesn't work.

[FrankO]

Here are a couple of photos from the re-enactment done by Robert Frazier a few days after the assassination. It was done by co-ordinating all the available movie films taken during the assassination, and taking photos through the telescopic sight on the actual Carcano rifle set up on the TSBD 6th floor. It was NOT a computer animation.





The first is labelled as being when the car is hidden behind the Freeway sign in the Zapruder film, supposedly about when Kennedy and Connolly are hit according to the Single Bullet Theory. Note the 40 degree angle, the controversial angle for Kennedy's back wound proposed by Humes. Also note the positions and alignment of Kennedy and Connolly, and then try to justify the Single Bullet Theory. If the re-enactment is to be accorded any credibility, this appears to be about when Kennedy's back wound occurred, but clearly the shot could not have exited the President's throat, and could not have also hit Connolly above his right armpit

The second is labelled as Frame 249, long after the SBT is claimed to have hit both men. The alignment still doesn't work.

Hi George,

One minor point and one bagger point.

Firstly, the re-enactment was done in May of 1964. And secondly, "position A" isn't (more or less) the position at which the president and Connally were supposed to have been hit by the same bullet. The sign you see in the photo you posted is the sign before the Stemmons Frreway sign and, so, at a point closer under the 6th floor window where the angle of the rifle would indeed be much larger than 20 or so degrees.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

One minor point and one bagger point.

Firstly, the re-enactment was done in May of 1964. And secondly, "position A" isn't (more or less) the position at which the president and Connally were supposed to have been hit by the same bullet. The sign you see in the photo you posted is the sign before the Stemmons Frreway sign and, so, at a point closer under the 6th floor window where the angle of the rifle would indeed be much larger than 20 or so degrees.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

You got me. I was watching Robert Frazier, at 94 years of age, narrate the happenings on the days after the funeral. I didn't notice the jump at the splice.

My second mistake, as you pointed out, was mistaking the Thornton sign for the Stemmons sign. Looking at the distance shown in the table it would appear that the first photo was at about Z130, just before the presidential limo appeared on the ZF. The limo was obscured from the sniper's nest by the tree from 166-210. I wonder why, with that view, the 6th floor gunman didn't take the shot at around 130?

While I was looking at the signs I noticed a peculiarity with the Altgens Photo #6:

This photo is generally attributed to Z255. Altgens used a 105mm telephoto, so there is a degree of image compression, but the Limo appears to be approximately at the tangent of the tight radius curve between Elm and Houston, which would place it in the vicinity of Z130. Also, the motorcycle cop (Chaney?) is about level with the president rather than with the follow vehicle.

Cheers, George

[cobalt]

Oswald had no legal representation during his brief interment. Yet despite being interrogated for around 16 hours only the most fragmentary evidence exists, and that was courtesy of FBI, CIA and DPD notes, none of which would be considered remotely reliable in a court of law. The claim that Oswald has no alibi is without foundation. It is false. He may have had an exceedingly good one.

Oswald claimed (as best we know) he had lunch in the Domino Room, went up to buy a coke and was out front with Bill Shelley.

Here are the questions which the authorities MUST have put to LHO.
1. Account for your movements between 12.00 and leaving the TSBD.
2/ Explain why you asked a taxi to drive past your place of residence.
3. How did you navigate from your rooming house to the cinema?
4. Why did you decide to take a revolver with you to visit a local cinema?

Astonishingly, questions 2 and 3 never seem to have been asked.
Question 1 iWC conclusion is undermined by WC testimony, principally that of Bonnie Ray Williams.

[Fiver]

'Feel free' to point out the bullet hole along the neckline in the aiutopsy 'photo' above.

That's a drawing of the location of the head wound, not a photo of the upper back/neck wound.

Here's the drawing of the upper back/neck wound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#/media/File:JFK_posterior_back_wound.jpg

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's a drawing of the location of the head wound, not a photo of the upper back/neck wound.

Here's the drawing of the upper back/neck wound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#/media/File:JFK_posterior_back_wound.jpg

There is no sign in that drawing of Kennedy's neck.