JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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.

[cobalt]

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

It's not so much a desire HS, more an instinctive reaction to a political murder.

If the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald then his political motivation is as unignorable as the proverbial elephant in the room. No amount of amateur psychology can disguise Oswald's verified involvement in politics; politics that publicly criticised the government of the day in regard to its foreign policy. If Oswald was the assassin then his political reasoning might have been wrong-headed, misguided or incoherent but the assassination would have been politically driven just the same.

This was not Buell Fraser or Jack Dougherty. This was a man who had defected to the Soviet bloc, been interviewed on local radio and who was (for reasons as yet unexplained) being impersonated in Mexico City. On arrest Oswald had the opportunity to reveal his political motivation (or his psychological demons if you prefer) but did not do so.

Of course, if Oswald was not the assassin but was framed to be the assassin then the political element speaks for itself. Hence the existence of conspiracy theories either way.

[Fiver]

This was not Buell Fraser or Jack Dougherty. This was a man who had defected to the Soviet bloc, been interviewed on local radio and who was (for reasons as yet unexplained) being impersonated in Mexico City.

You admit that there is no discernable reason to impersonate Oswald in Mexico. It would take significant effort. It wouldn't gain anything for a Conspiracy. And we have both a rough and final draft of Oswald writing that he had gone to Mexico, as well as two witnesses, one his wife, that Oswald had written the letters.

Seems far more likely that it was a case of mistaken identity rather than impersonation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not so much a desire HS, more an instinctive reaction to a political murder.

If the assassin was Lee Harvey Oswald then his political motivation is as unignorable as the proverbial elephant in the room. No amount of amateur psychology can disguise Oswald's verified involvement in politics; politics that publicly criticised the government of the day in regard to its foreign policy. If Oswald was the assassin then his political reasoning might have been wrong-headed, misguided or incoherent but the assassination would have been politically driven just the same.

This was not Buell Fraser or Jack Dougherty. This was a man who had defected to the Soviet bloc, been interviewed on local radio and who was (for reasons as yet unexplained) being impersonated in Mexico City. On arrest Oswald had the opportunity to reveal his political motivation (or his psychological demons if you prefer) but did not do so.

Of course, if Oswald was not the assassin but was framed to be the assassin then the political element speaks for itself. Hence the existence of conspiracy theories either way.

But it’s no amateur psychology Cobalt. A very real psychiatrist stated plainly and openly Oswald’s issues. The things that he did during is his lifestyle, issues in childhood, issues in the military, the wrist-cutting in the Soviet Union, the violence toward his wife, brother and mother, his moving from job to job. His attempt on Walker and threat to Nixon. How can we see Oswald as other than a disaffected, unbalanced figure. Yes, he was political but this doesn’t prove conspiracy. It makes him a not-very-trustworthy type of person. The last ‘type’ that would have been chosen as part of any conspiracy. It was also true that the people who knew him well said that they had no problem in believing that he might have killed Kennedy.

You assume that he was ‘impersonated’ in Mexico. What actually happened was that a photograph was mistakenly assumed to have been Oswald. This is no mystery. Why would anyone get someone to impersonate someone when they looked nothing like them? Oswald was hardly Andre the Giant or Phil Spector so it wouldn’t have been remotely difficult to find someone who at least matched Oswald’s general description.

Then his actions on the Thursday and Friday scream guilty just about as loudly as possible. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could have acted in a more guilty way.

So basically we have someone who is the ‘type’ of person who would do something like those. He acts like a guilty man. Physical evidence is found to prove his guilt. Then, on his route from his rooming house to the cinema, Officer Tippit is killed. How unlucky would Oswald have had to have been for so many random witnesses to have ID’d him? Then, just to top it off, he has the murder weapon on him.

The question really should be - how could this man have not been guilty?

[Fiver]

Of course, if Oswald was not the assassin but was framed to be the assassin then the political element speaks for itself. Hence the existence of conspiracy theories either way.

So far, no sensible motive has been given why any organization would attempt to assassinate JFK. And most Conspiracies require, not one, but several rival or even hostile organizations to cooperate.

Failure means death and disgrace. Yet most Conspiracies require repeated blind luck to succeed.

Every additional person added to the Conspiracy greatly increases the risk that someone will deliberately or accidentally betray the plot. Yet most Conspiracies require dozens, if not hundreds, of people to be in on the Conspiracy.

Then there are the decisions that make no sense for any Conspiracy with significant resources. For example, why attack the target in a moving vehicle when they were stationary on a raised platform earlier that same day?