JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if one has no ideas of their own, it's the only thing they can do.

But if one is going to copy-paste, the proper thing would be to at least link it, to give credit to their sources.

I find the copy-pastes amusing - they contradict the facts, each other, the poster's own theories, and occasionally the laws of physics. They uncritically accept mutually contradictory theories and loonies like Garrison, who legitimate Conspiracists wouldn't touch with a twenty-foot pole.

What we get is quotes cut and pasted as if they are some new discovery. As if they are proof of something. We could all do it. We try to respond but it becomes impossible to keep up. Quantity over quality. It’s an attempt to avoid scrutiny or criticism or rebuttal.

[Fiver]

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint.

However, the HSCA did.

The palmprint section must be changed to reflect the latest findings of the FBI that the palmprint had to have been lifted from the barrel because of the marks that appear on the lift that correspond to those on the rifle barrel itself.

Mr. LIBELER - If I may, I will explain exactly what happened in both of those cases, it won't take very long. I think particularly the point on the rifle barrel may be worthwhile. The Dallas Police Department had gotten to the rifle. Very shortly thereafter they sent it to the FBI for fingerprint analysis. The FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle. Four days later the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited 4 days to send this lift to the FBI or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though the print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle barrel and it was still there. Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. It occurred to us that it was possible that in fact the palm print never came from the rifle. We only had the say-so of the Dallas Police Department to that effect and we weren't satisfied with that. We wanted the FBI to establish, if they could, whether that palm print in fact came from that rifle or not. At the time this question was raised no attempt whatever had been made to deal with that problem. Now after the discussion that Mr. Willens and Redlich and I had that was referred to in the testimony Mr. Rankin invited to his office the chief FBI fingerprint expert, Inspector Mally of the FBI, who was liaison with the Commission and I think Mr. Slawson and Mr. Griffin and Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich and Mr. Rankin met with them. I suggested to Mr. Latona, their fingerprint expert, that there might be some distortion in the lift because it had been taken from a cylindrical surface, sort of a Mercator projection is here, put your hand on a light bulb and take the lift and lay it flat, it might distort the lift from what it might have been on the surface. Latona went back and looked at the lift. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that, that that had come from that rifle.

It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Mr. DULLES. The original print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. WADE. This was 8 o'clock roughly on the 24th, Sunday night. I sat down with Captain Fritz and took a pencil and pad and listed about seven pieces of evidence from my own knowledge and I was going to write it down. They got hold of Chief Curry and he said no, that he had told this inspector of the FBI that there would be nothing further said about it.
I asked Chief Batchelor and Lumpkin, they were all there, I said you all are the ones who know something about it, I said if you have at least got the right man in my opinion the American people ought to know.
This is evidence you can't use actually, because he is dead. You can't try him. And the upshot of that was the police wouldn't say a word and refused actually to furnish me any more of the details on this.
I mean what the seven points. I went on out there in from front of the cameras and ran them through those points. Actually my purpose in it was, good or bad was, because the Dallas police were taking a beating because they had solved the crime and had good evidence and I told them it was good but I did leave out some things and I was a little inaccurate in one or two things but it was because of the communications with the police.
I didn't have the map, incidentally. I wanted the map at that time but forgot all about it, and I ran through just what I knew, which probably was worse than nothing.
It probably would have been better off without giving anything, because we didn't give what all we had.
Mr. DULLES. Do you remember the elements of inaccuracy that got into this statement of yours?
Mr. WADE. I think I told them about the palmprint on the bottom of the gun, that Lane has made a great issue of and I still think I was right on it but he has made an issue.

[cobalt]

It wasn't my intention to question the legal abilities of either Garrison or Bugliosi. I was just expressing a preference to keep their type of rhetoric inside the courtroom but not the jury room.

Jim Garrison has long been a hate figure for those committed to the Warren Report. He not only rejected their findings but included the CIA and the powerful press as being engaged in a cover up of the truth. His point about the government seeing its job as to control the people, rather than the people controlling the government is as relevant today as when he said it back in 1967.

So the political elite, the gate holders of democratic discourse, never forgave him for managing to show the hidden Zapruder film in public.

[Fiver]

THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

Groody first made this claim in 1982, nearly two decades after the assassination. No witnesses or evidence back Groody's claim, which makes no sense. The Marines would have had Oswald's fingerprints on file. The Dallas police had Oswald's prints from when he was booked. The Parkland morgue took Oswald's prints as part of his autopsy. The New Orleans police had Oswald's prints from when he was booked

Nobody had any reason to fingerprint Oswald's corpse at the funeral home.

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.

I see your source understands nothing about fingerprinting. Fingerprinting someone does not give you the ability to plant their fingerprints on other surfaces. If it did, then fingerprints would be useless as evidence.

And if there was some magical way, unknown to science, to do this the Dallas still wouldn't need to visit the mortuary, as they already had two sets of Oswald's prints.

[Fiver]

Jim Garrison has long been a hate figure for those committed to the Warren Report. He not only rejected their findings but included the CIA and the powerful press as being engaged in a cover up of the truth. His point about the government seeing its job as to control the people, rather than the people controlling the government is as relevant today as when he said it back in 1967.

Garrison was a loony who thought there were 5 shooters and that it was a "homosexual thrill killing".

So the political elite, the gate holders of democratic discourse, never forgave him for managing to show the hidden Zapruder film in public.

The Zapruder film supports the Warren Commission's conclusions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Zapruder film supports the Warren Commission's conclusions.

And it matches the skull x-Ray which is childishly accused of being a fake.

And the HSCA, who called the autopsy ‘botched,’ which is an exaggeration fully accepted the findings that Kennedy was shot twice from behind. Which he very obviously was.

This clearly, obviously wasn’t a ‘dodgy’ autopsy in any way. CT’s have simply latched on to certain phrases and twisted them…as per.

[cobalt]

They didn't need any prints from Oswald. They needed prints on the rifle. Which is a different game as any SCO will tell you if you ask them.

If the Zapruder film confirmed the WC findings, then why was it not broadcast across the land from 1964? Why was it held back from the American people until the 1970s? Surely, to reassure the public, there was no better document. In fact the WC could have published it themselves if they were the good men and true we are told they were.

The answer is clearly that Zapruder film contradicts the WC findings. There was a conspiracy. 'Back and to the left' as Jim Garrison said. He opened Pandora's Box in 1967 and nothing has been the same ever since. That is why he is hated by those who have benefitted from the assassination and hold economic and political power to this day as a result. Some of them are on this site.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t know why it wasn’t shown Cobalt but this was the 60’s. A different time. The likeliest suggestion for me would have been taste. You couldn’t show that kind of stuff on TV. Plus a concern for the family might have come into it. Nothing remotely suspicious though.

How can it contradict the WC’s findings. It very clearly shows no large wound to the back of Kennedy’s head. It couldn’t be really clearer.

The ‘back and to the left’ has been explained by an army of scientists and weapons experts. I don’t know why it’s still discussed.

There were no shots from the front. This has been proven by around 17 pathologists in total.

The autopsy has only been ‘assumed’ corrupt by conspiracy theorists who begin from a position that there must have been a shot from the front. So any evidence that doesn’t fit their fallacy becomes ‘fake’ ‘forgery’ ‘corruption’ etc. The autopsy while far, far from perfect wasn’t corrupt in any way. The only thing that’s ‘corrupt’ is the way that conspiracy theorists have manipulated testimony and evidence to create a fantasy.

The very idea of setting up a corrupt autopsy of a President is risible. The product of obsession.

Genuinly Cobalt I really can’t understand this deep-seated desire to see ‘conspiracy’ everywhere?

[cobalt]

Well, the 1960s was supposed to be the era of freedom man and let it all hang out. I was around at that time myself.

The Zapruder film is a problem for the WC and that is why they preferred to act as, what Garrison described, noble guardians of our taste to protect us from reality. They themselves, our elite leaders, could deal with the reality but the people could not be trusted to do so. There dies democracy, as Garrison forcefully described. The film footage of the assassination of the POTUS is held in a private vault????

Garrison believed the people had the right to see the footage: he managed to make that happen. All credit to him for that. Since then the WC advocates have been fighting on the back foot. They were furious that the film was ever shown. And to this day they loathe Garrison for that. They wanted it left in the vault. Their excuses have become lamer over the years.

[Fiver]

They didn't need any prints from Oswald. They needed prints on the rifle.

They weren't going to get any prints on the rifle by fingerprinting Oswald's corpse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, the 1960s was supposed to be the era of freedom man and let it all hang out. I was around at that time myself.

The Zapruder film is a problem for the WC and that is why they preferred to act as, what Garrison described, noble guardians of our taste to protect us from reality. They themselves, our elite leaders, could deal with the reality but the people could not be trusted to do so. There dies democracy, as Garrison forcefully described. The film footage of the assassination of the POTUS is held in a private vault????

Garrison believed the people had the right to see the footage: he managed to make that happen. All credit to him for that. Since then the WC advocates have been fighting on the back foot. They were furious that the film was ever shown. And to this day they loathe Garrison for that. They wanted it left in the vault. Their excuses have become lamer over the years.

Garrison was loathed because he was a proven liar and a fantasist who orchestrated a despicable campaign to ruin the life of an entirely innocent man. Even some members of his research team couldn’t stomach the things he got up to. Drugging witnesses etc. garrison was a piece of ****

How can you claim that the Zapruder Film proves the WC wrong Cobalt. You’ve obviously seen it a thousand times as we all have. No rear head wound. Absolute proof that the autopsy was correct. How could this be clearer. Then we have an experts from all over explaining the movement of Kennedy’s head (which initially moves forward slightly)

How many canards can you keep hanging onto?

Three shots…one missed, one hit Kennedy’s then Connally, the last truck Kennedy’s head. One gunman…Lee Harvey Oswald from the TSBD 6th floor window. This has all been proven. In a court case all the talk of conspiracy would have been laughed at.

[Fiver]

If the Zapruder film confirmed the WC findings, then why was it not broadcast across the land from 1964? Why was it held back from the American people until the 1970s? Surely, to reassure the public, there was no better document.

It's footage of a real person's brains being splattered. It wasn't a black and white still photo without blood like the killings of Oswald or the Saigon Execution photo. It was a color motion picture of a very messy death of someone popular and influential. Zapruder was horrified enough he tried to keep frame 313, the fatal headshot from being shown even in still form. Any period movie showing that level of violence would have been slapped with an X Rating. I'm surprised it was shown on TV as early as the 1970s.

[Fiver]

'Back and to the left' as Jim Garrison said.

Garrison also said that the fatal shot came from a storm drain and that it was a "homosexual thrill killing".

As to the "back and to the left", this isn't Hollywood.

[Pcdunn]

I don’t know why it wasn’t shown Cobalt but this was the 60’s. A different time. The likeliest suggestion for me would have been taste. You couldn’t show that kind of stuff on TV. Plus a concern for the family might have come into it. Nothing remotely suspicious though.

The Zapgruder film wasn't held back *too* long. I attended a California high school between 1969 and 1973. I distinctly remember viewing this startling home movie in an assembly. I can still hear the gasps from my classmates at the images of the assassination.

Now, I don't know much about the eternal controversy about the theories and evidence, but I doubt the film would have been released for educational use if it was determined to contradict the findings of the Warren Commission.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Zapgruder film wasn't held back *too* long. I attended a California high school between 1969 and 1973. I distinctly remember viewing this startling home movie in an assembly. I can still hear the gasps from my classmates at the images of the assassination.

Now, I don't know much about the eternal controversy about the theories and evidence, but I doubt the film would have been released for educational use if it was determined to contradict the findings of the Warren Commission.

Hi Pat,

It’s difficult if not impossible to see how the Zapruder film can be considered as proof of conspiracy. Actually it’s a bit of a buffet of picking and choosing on the part of conspiracy supporters.

a) They think that the fact that Kennedy’s head went backwards proves a shot from the front (despite the initial movement being forward and an army of scientists explaining the backward movement)

b) In glaring technicolour we see the back of Kennedy’s head and can’t fail to see absolutely no gaping wound as claimed.

So, according to conspiracy theorists, the film is….

good…because it shows the backward movement therefore..bingo..conspiracy.

faked…because it doesn’t show a massive wound to the back of Kennedy’s head therefore..bingo..conspiracy.

And people wonder why so many people in the world have been hoodwinked into assuming that a conspiracy occurred.