JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

you have said this multiple times but i dont know what questions you have. Please send a question my way.

The questions are based on the premise that a conspiracy would have to have been organised and orchestrated by people/groups of great influence and authority (to be able to set up a dodgy autopsy, a dodgy WC, plant prints etc) as opposed to say, Oswald a three friends in a bar coming up with a ‘conspiracy.’

1. Why, just after the Cuban Missile Crisis and at a time when the government wanted to avoid any escalation with the Soviet Union and with the general anti-communist feeling at the time would they have selected a recent defector to their plot which could only have fuelled fear and paranoia that the Soviets had been involved in the assassination of the President? Oswald’s defection couldn’t have been kept secret.
2. We would surely have to agree that no conspirator (at whatever level) would have wanted their name, at any time, to have come out as being a part of a plot to kill the President. Indeed it’s difficult to conceive of the effect on the nation if was proven that the President was killed by, or with the help or knowledge of, one of the countries own trusted institutions. So why go with a plot that involves so many people. Police, secret service, doctors, military, CIA, FBI, Warren commissioners, experts employed for testing etc etc. it must be 100’s of people. Even when planning a minor secret the rule is always ‘the fewer in the know the better.’ And we can’t say “low level people wouldn’t have known who planned it all” because they wouldn’t have needed to. Simply letting slip at some point that they had been forced or cajoled into lying would have been enough of a risk. So why go with a plot involving so many?
3. Why go with such a complex plot which requires so many actions after the event? Planting of prints, the ‘framing’ of Oswald over the completely unnecessary Tippit murder, the fake autopsy, the corrupt WC, etc.
4. Why select the Grassy Knoll? It’s in front of a car park (used by the Dallas Police Department and Court House workers) and had a working railway tower so the killer could have been seen from back there. Then there were people on both sides of the street. Any of those on the Knoll side could have happened to turn around and seen the gunman. Ditto those on the opposite side but the added risk was of him being captured in a photograph or a piece of footage. There’s no way that the police could have had even 10% confidence in being able to gather in all film/stills before everyone left the Plaza. This must be the worst spot possible so how could an alleged group of high level conspirators have signed off on that?
5. Why would conspirators go to the huge trouble of setting up a fake autopsy where they were trying to give a false impression of the wounds when they would have known that Kennedy would be taken initially to Parkland where no such precautions could be taken. It’s like a bank robber putting on his mask after he’s just done the robbery.
6. How could a high level conspiracy manage to set up a fake autopsy and commission, plant evidence etc, fake that the 2 guns were owned by Oswald etc but not manage to provide a car to get Oswald away from Dealey Plaza? What kind of people leave a guy that they’ve apparently set up as the murderer of the President roaming around free, getting arrested and talking on national TV?
7. Why not, top sniper with the best equipment, placed in a building (didn’t even have to be Dallas) one head shot, car waiting at the back of the building or down some side street. Assassin whisked away. Either payed off/new identity etc or killed. Didn’t our conspirators like ‘efficient’ and ‘low risk?’
8. Why take the enormous and unnecessary risk of ‘planting’ 3 cartridges on the 6th floor and then employing a second gunman? It’s insanity. Just one bullet fragment found of a different type and it’s…2 gunmen. Just enough to take the total weight over 3 bullets and it’s…2 gunman. What if half a bullet had gone through and was found much later by a member of the public? It’s 2 gunman? These conspirators were risking all on luck. (Like what if a coworker or two had arrived on the 6th floor?)

[scottnapa]

1). Yes, beyond doubt, officialdom wanted a verdict that Oswald was a lone gunman. That has never been disputed.

2). The commission team investigating were never steered in that direction. In fact, several of them admitted that at the start they believed that there must have been a conspiracy, but changed their minds as they investigated, as they found no evidence. The point I was making was that the team never at any time set out to reach the lone gunman conclusion. It was reached as the most likely conclusion after a genuine detailed investigation.

3). That there was a conspiracy, for which no evidence was discovered, or discovered but concealed by the CIA or FBI is certainly possible, but unproven.

this is a post from week ago but I have something for you to look at.
In this NYT op ed from 1975 by a Warren Commission lawyer.
Items of note: John Ely clearly states they had no independent investigation apparatus, they were lawyers. Writing in 1975 Ely is aware of the distrust in government after the Nixon impeachment. As well as the CIA issues with Watergate break-in defendants, and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état as an example of overthrowing governments and FBI assassinating Fred Hampton and not protecting Martin Luther King.
Hart believes in the WC findings but realizes the 1964 conclusion is undermined by the nature of the now known crimes of these investigative agencies.

[FISHY1118]

Why are you getting so angry Fishy. I’m not ‘squabbling’ as you describe it. I’m simply asking questions and making points as per a forum. That they are questions that you don’t like can hardly be blamed on me. Unless you want to submit a list of questions that you are prepared to respond to.

I'm not at all angry herlock , why you'd would think that in not sure , im more than happy to continue the debate with you and other posters as long as it stays on a calm level playing field .

We don't want this thread closed down as we've seen happen in the past. I'm sure you agree with that.?

[FISHY1118]

You are the one claiming to know that evidence is coming to prove conspiracy. I just asked how you could know that which seems like a highly pertinent question under the circumstances. If you have inside information that the rest of us don’t have I’m sure that, whatever ‘side’ were on we would all love to hear it.

Because there was never a trial as Oswald escaped justice the only ‘trial’ based thing that we have available (apart from the HSCA of course who also found Oswald guilty) is the ‘mock trial.’ Using witnesses that both would be considered as supporting conspiracy and lone gunman. Cyril Wecht gave evidence btw. Oswald was found guilty as you know. So unless you believe that they were basing the trial on some imaginary evidence alone it is as it is. However angry that might make you.

Yes I claimed it because the current administration has promised to release all the remaining files on the case , now those file i believe will reveal a conspiracy , you can say they won't thats fine but you don't know they won't .

Simple fact one way or the other we will all find out together.

Its not about "imaginary evidence" herlock, it about "The Evidence" of all those that contradicted the WC findings that were not submitted by a defense lawyer of a so called mock trial . Which as you would also know if such evidence was given Oswald would certainly have walk a free man . An absolute certainty.

[scottnapa]

The questions are based on the premise that a conspiracy would have to have been organised and orchestrated by people/groups of great influence and authority (to be able to set up a dodgy autopsy, a dodgy WC, plant prints etc) as opposed to say, Oswald a three friends in a bar coming up with a ‘conspiracy.’

1. Why, just after the Cuban Missile Crisis and at a time when the government wanted to avoid any escalation with the Soviet Union and with the general anti-communist feeling at the time would they have selected a recent defector to their plot which could only have fuelled fear and paranoia that the Soviets had been involved in the assassination of the President? Oswald’s defection couldn’t have been kept secret.
2. We would surely have to agree that no conspirator (at whatever level) would have wanted their name, at any time, to have come out as being a part of a plot to kill the President. Indeed it’s difficult to conceive of the effect on the nation if was proven that the President was killed by, or with the help or knowledge of, one of the countries own trusted institutions. So why go with a plot that involves so many people. Police, secret service, doctors, military, CIA, FBI, Warren commissioners, experts employed for testing etc etc. it must be 100’s of people. Even when planning a minor secret the rule is always ‘the fewer in the know the better.’ And we can’t say “low level people wouldn’t have known who planned it all” because they wouldn’t have needed to. Simply letting slip at some point that they had been forced or cajoled into lying would have been enough of a risk. So why go with a plot involving so many?
3. Why go with such a complex plot which requires so many actions after the event? Planting of prints, the ‘framing’ of Oswald over the completely unnecessary Tippit murder, the fake autopsy, the corrupt WC, etc.
4. Why select the Grassy Knoll? It’s in front of a car park (used by the Dallas Police Department and Court House workers) and had a working railway tower so the killer could have been seen from back there. Then there were people on both sides of the street. Any of those on the Knoll side could have happened to turn around and seen the gunman. Ditto those on the opposite side but the added risk was of him being captured in a photograph or a piece of footage. There’s no way that the police could have had even 10% confidence in being able to gather in all film/stills before everyone left the Plaza. This must be the worst spot possible so how could an alleged group of high level conspirators have signed off on that?
5. Why would conspirators go to the huge trouble of setting up a fake autopsy where they were trying to give a false impression of the wounds when they would have known that Kennedy would be taken initially to Parkland where no such precautions could be taken. It’s like a bank robber putting on his mask after he’s just done the robbery.
6. How could a high level conspiracy manage to set up a fake autopsy and commission, plant evidence etc, fake that the 2 guns were owned by Oswald etc but not manage to provide a car to get Oswald away from Dealey Plaza? What kind of people leave a guy that they’ve apparently set up as the murderer of the President roaming around free, getting arrested and talking on national TV?
7. Why not, top sniper with the best equipment, placed in a building (didn’t even have to be Dallas) one head shot, car waiting at the back of the building or down some side street. Assassin whisked away. Either payed off/new identity etc or killed. Didn’t our conspirators like ‘efficient’ and ‘low risk?’
8. Why take the enormous and unnecessary risk of ‘planting’ 3 cartridges on the 6th floor and then employing a second gunman? It’s insanity. Just one bullet fragment found of a different type and it’s…2 gunmen. Just enough to take the total weight over 3 bullets and it’s…2 gunman. What if half a bullet had gone through and was found much later by a member of the public? It’s 2 gunman? These conspirators were risking all on luck. (Like what if a coworker or two had arrived on the 6th floor?)

Thank you, Lock.
I will look at these one by one and replay in time.
Perhaps you might ponder a respond to two items I have uploaded that no wc believer has addressed.
1) The statement from the White House command center where Oswald is stated to have acted alone before Oswald have been questioned
2) Admiral Burkley offers proof of conspiracy.

[Fiver]

I'll ask BOTH pro- & anti-Conspiracy advocates the same question I ask of Suspect Advocates in the Ripper case:

Assume, for the sake of the argument, that what REALLY happened was just the opposite of what you are theorizing. Just what evidence would it take to convince you that you have been WRONG? Witnesses? been done. Forensics? been done (in part). A confession in a diary? been done. Graffiti at the site? been done. A before-the event paper trail? been done. Police or asylum records? been done or missing. A seance? been done. Profiling? been done.

Just WHAT evidence would you accept to change your Religion?

(Maybe I should post this as a separate thread?)

I previously posted that I would be willing to accept a conspiracy.

I cannot accept the Conspiracy that is being presented - infinite power and influence combined with a stunning stupid plan that repeatedly relies on sheer luck in order to succeed. Over 100 Conspirators, many from rival or even hostile groups, working together for goal that gains little or nothing if it succeeds, guarantees death and disgrace if it fails, and offers recognition and reward to any betrayer.

Lets look at the only known conspiracies to target a US President.

Lincoln
* A handful of Confederate spies and sympathizers who already knew each other with a common hatred of Lincoln.
* On switching from a kidnap to a murder plot, three conspirators dropped out of the plan and a fourth had to be pressured into staying.
* Notable lack of skill - only Powell had served in the military.
* Minimal planning.
* Booth succeeds, Azertodt can't go through with it, and Powell fails. Herold flees at the first sign of things going wrong.
* Most fail abjectly at escaping, Booth and Herold manage it short term mainly based on luck.

Truman
* Two men who delusionally think this will help Puerto Rican independence.
* Both are willing to die for their cause.
* Collazo has to be taught to load and handle the gun he would use.
* The plan was almost non-existent.
* Collazo is almost completely ineffective, other than as an unintentional decoy.
* There doesn't seem to have been an escape plan.
* Both conspirators were killed or captured and the assassination failed.

I could see Oswald being part of a ramshackle plot by a handful of unskilled amateurs, with the others chickening out or being ineffective. I'd need actual evidence, not another deathbed confession from a publicity seeker who wasn't even in Dallas.

[Patrick Differ]

It's hard to believe Burkley was never interviewed by the WC. My own view is there are 2 events that clearly contradict the Bethesda Autopsy and # bullets theory. The Parkland Doctors who knew nothing of Oswald, Dealy Plaza or number of bullets clearly thought the throat and head wounds of Kennedy were from the front. I've never heard a valid medical explanation of Kennedys head movement shown on the Zapruder Film. Unless I missed that here?
The second contradiction to WC was by the other agent in the Limo, Kellerman. His original testimony was he heard one shot and then a " flurry" of shots and felt like he was in a shooting gallery. He felt confident that there was more than one shooter.
of course testimonies can change over time. But i was always bothered by the way the car was handled as evidence and by December it was stripped down to the frame.
if Kennedy were shot in the back of the head you would think the front of Kennedy would be splattered with blood meaning Connally and Kellerman.. However when you see the Limo the blood spatter is on the Kennedy seat bottom and back. The bottom where his head fell was coated
Hard to reconcile this testimony but Parkland Doctors almost to a man never agreed with Bethesday.
autopsy .
maybe that is part of the new release

[C. F. Leon]

... The Parkland Doctors who knew nothing of Oswald, Dealy Plaza or number of bullets clearly thought the throat and head wounds of Kennedy were from the front. I've never heard a valid medical explanation of Kennedys head movement shown on the Zapruder Film. Unless I missed that here?

...

Of the books that I have read, both Lattimer (1982) and Posner (1993) cover that. Dr. Lattimer goes into considerable detail based on his experiments. He was a medical doctor and a gun expert which, in my book, gives his account much more weight that Lifton's "Everything's Faked" nonsense.

Also, see the two Nova Anniversary specials (1980, 2010) and the JFK Assassination website https://www.jfk-assassination.net/home.htm [It did not show up in a recent Google search, but I have it bookmarked.]

[FISHY1118]

It's hard to believe Burkley was never interviewed by the WC. My own view is there are 2 events that clearly contradict the Bethesda Autopsy and # bullets theory. The Parkland Doctors who knew nothing of Oswald, Dealy Plaza or number of bullets clearly thought the throat and head wounds of Kennedy were from the front. I've never heard a valid medical explanation of Kennedys head movement shown on the Zapruder Film. Unless I missed that here?
The second contradiction to WC was by the other agent in the Limo, Kellerman. His original testimony was he heard one shot and then a " flurry" of shots and felt like he was in a shooting gallery. He felt confident that there was more than one shooter.
of course testimonies can change over time. But i was always bothered by the way the car was handled as evidence and by December it was stripped down to the frame.
if Kennedy were shot in the back of the head you would think the front of Kennedy would be splattered with blood meaning Connally and Kellerman.. However when you see the Limo the blood spatter is on the Kennedy seat bottom and back. The bottom where his head fell was coated
Hard to reconcile this testimony but Parkland Doctors almost to a man never agreed with Bethesday.
autopsy .
maybe that is part of the new release

''The Parkland Doctors who knew nothing of Oswald, Dealy Plaza or number of bullets clearly thought the throat and head wounds of Kennedy were from the front.''


Indeed this is a very important fact .30 mins after the first shots were fired They knew the truth!! , For 62 years the Warren Commision report has been the biggest lie of our time , A shameful bunch of men who changed the course of history for their own greed .

JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass (2021)

The best and true account of what Happen on Nov 22nd 1963.

[Fiver]

Let me make it clearer ,What is coming is , the evidence that will show there was indeed a conspiracy within the u.s. government to assassinate there own president with multiple shooters. Period. Full stop .

This is what has been said every previous time that more documents have been released or another review of the case occurs. A competent Conspiracy wouldn't have documented a murder Conspiracy the first place and if they were that stupid, they've had over 60 years to erase the evidence.

[Fiver]

The crime was committed in Texas.

Good to see you've finally abandoned your "no crime because the body was removed" opinion.

A Bethesda autopsy would not be allowed at a Texas trial.

The Texas Rules of Evidence do not support your opinion.

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

[Lewis C]

Firing at a steep downward angle is much less accurate. Firing at an approaching vehicle requires leading the target more, which is less accurate. Firing while JFK was approaching would make the shooter easier to spot and make it harder to escape.

Firing from the 6th floor straight down when the limo was turning would require leaning out the window in a poorly braced or unbraced position, which is very inaccurate and leaves the shooter extremely exposed to both identification and return fire.

But you don't believe Oswald was the shooter, so lets turn your question back at you.

If shooting at JFK as he was approaching the Book Depository was a good idea, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

If shooting at JFK while the limo was turning from Houston into Elm, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

Yes, the only way that I can see in which the question of why Oswald shot when he did is relevant is if your position is that there were no shots fired from the TSBD, and I haven't noticed anyone in this forum taking that position. I think that it makes perfect sense why Oswald shot when he did, but if you think that it doesn't make sense, then it equally doesn't make sense regardless of whether it was Oswald acting alone, or Oswald as part of a conspiracy, or some other shooter taking the shots from the TSBD.

[scottnapa]

The Texas Rules of Evidence do not support your opinion.
"

TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE

effective March 1, 2013
The 1963 law matters.
Laws change that document does not apply GO FISH

The body was removed before the autopsy therefore the chain of evidence is broken and the autopsy in Maryland could NOT be used in a Texas trial attempting to convict Lee Oswald. They could easily charge him for Tippet. BUT not Kennedy.
That's why the WC made the recommendation to change the law so that it is a federal crime.
Interesting that you now disagree with Gerald Ford and the WC. you continue to surprise me in unfortunate ways.

the time of the crime, killing a president was not a violation of federal law. Therefore, if

Lee Harvey Oswald had not been killed, he would have stood trial in Dallas County under

the Texas statute of murder.

You are the ONLY person that doesn't understand this.

[FISHY1118]

This is what has been said every previous time that more documents have been released or another review of the case occurs. A competent Conspiracy wouldn't have documented a murder Conspiracy the first place and if they were that stupid, they've had over 60 years to erase the evidence.

Its the warren commission conspiracy , you have it it all wrong .

Remember those file were never released due to" national security" risk .

What Risk did LHO pose pray tell ???? , especially when he was murdered 60 years ago. ?????????

[FISHY1118]

Firing at a steep downward angle is much less accurate. Firing at an approaching vehicle requires leading the target more, which is less accurate. Firing while JFK was approaching would make the shooter easier to spot and make it harder to escape.

Firing from the 6th floor straight down when the limo was turning would require leaning out the window in a poorly braced or unbraced position, which is very inaccurate and leaves the shooter extremely exposed to both identification and return fire.

But you don't believe Oswald was the shooter, so lets turn your question back at you.

If shooting at JFK as he was approaching the Book Depository was a good idea, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

If shooting at JFK while the limo was turning from Houston into Elm, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

All those excuses you mentioned are in a one word ... HorseS#$%.

Seriously, you want people to belive that nonsense, ?



The obvious answer to your question is simply , multiple gunman with multiple shots from a number of positions .

Oswald wasn't part of any Conspiracy remember, he acted alone according to you , so again ill ask why didn't he make all 3 shots on Houston st?

Those things you mentioned are plain silly for obvious reasons, in that they don't pose any problems whatsoever.