JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

Box 2915 was in Dallas, not in New Orleans.

Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application.
Mr. LIEBELER. Right.
Mr. HOLMES. Now he did tell me in personal interrogation that no one was permitted to get mail in that box but him.
Mr. LIEBELER. He said that same thing about the box in New Orleans, too, didn't he?
Mr. HOLMES. He did at first, and then----
Mr. LIEBELER. Then you showed him portion three of the application and then he changed his story?
Mr. HOLMES. I said how about Marina Oswald, and he said, well, she was my wife. What is wrong with that? And I said how about A. J. Hidell, and he said I don't know anything about that. And I said look here. And he said, well, I don't know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.

[Fiver]

Arlen Specter needed a Single Bullet to make Oswald the killer.

The prints on the rifle and the ballistics evidence made Oswald the killer. The Single Bullet meant Oswald was the only shooter.

His theory is disproven.

Knott Labs had JFK hit in the throat at frame 225 when the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK was hit some time before frame 224. Comparison with frame 225 also shows that Knott Labs has Connally turned significantly further to the left than he actually was.

They have not disproven the single bullet theory.

[Fiver]

There is another Laser Company calked Lidar that also concludes what Knott does. Dated June 2024.

Lidar is the laser scanning technology used by Knott Labs, not another analysis of the scene.

[FrankO]

The prints on the rifle and the ballistics evidence made Oswald the killer. The Single Bullet meant Oswald was the only shooter.



Knott Labs had JFK hit in the throat at frame 225 when the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK was hit some time before frame 224. Comparison with frame 225 also shows that Knott Labs has Connally turned significantly further to the left than he actually was.

They have not disproven the single bullet theory.

Hi Fiver,

It’s clear to me too that JFK was hit before frame 225, as in that frame he’s already started to react. It actually surprises me that Knott took frame 225 as a starting point for analyses.

As to Connally’s position in that frame as compared to what Knott made of that, the figure portraying him seems off to me, especially his bulging shoulder line and he seems to be leaning forward somewhat, which I don’t see in either the Zapruder film or any of the photographs. I don’t see what you see, i.e. that he’s turned significantly further to the left than he actually was. Or maybe I misunderstood you there.

But that doesn’t really matter, as I do see that Connally was turned more to his right in earlier frames than in frame 225 and that’s when I think JFK and Connally were hit. And if Connally would be turned even slightly to his right in the Knott representation of frame 225, then the alignments would be there.

As a side note, it’s interesting to see that Connally, between frames 226 and 231, slides down. Until frame 226, the top of his head is just below Mrs. Kennedy’s eye level, whereas in frame 230, almost her whole face is visible.

The best,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application.
Mr. LIEBELER. Right.
Mr. HOLMES. Now he did tell me in personal interrogation that no one was permitted to get mail in that box but him.
Mr. LIEBELER. He said that same thing about the box in New Orleans, too, didn't he?
Mr. HOLMES. He did at first, and then----
Mr. LIEBELER. Then you showed him portion three of the application and then he changed his story?
Mr. HOLMES. I said how about Marina Oswald, and he said, well, she was my wife. What is wrong with that? And I said how about A. J. Hidell, and he said I don't know anything about that. And I said look here. And he said, well, I don't know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.

In your posts #3589 and #3609 you tried to deceitfully pass off an order alteration from a retailer to a wholesaler as "an example of Klein's substituting when they were out of 91TS." These old rifles were usually only bought by collectors, and no reputable retailer would substitute another model without consultation with the customer.

In your post #3971, you presented a devious attempt to show Fishy incorrect when he stated that Post Office rules did not allow for deliveries to a P.O. Box for any other name than those authorised by the box owner, by showing that A Hidell was authorised for a totally different PO Box in another city.

In this post you double down on this deception with the above consummate gobbledegook involving "surmise" as to why the staff in a post office would choose risk dismissal by ignoring their regulations, that "surmise" involving suppositions involving a brother, cousins and the location of "the window" compared to "the box". There is then the supposition that since it may have been possible that a card was put in the box, contrary to regulations, anyone, without identification, could collect the parcel because they had a completely blank card that they claim they got from the box. The conclusion (Either way, he got it.) is the classic make the evidence fit the conclusion by what ever fraudulent means are available.

The above is signature method tactics for the WC, Bugliosi, and their apologists. The leading of witnesses, the engagement in "what if" and "is it possible that" questioning does not constitute evidence. The facts that the Carcano that was allegedly ordered by Oswald does not match the rifle allegedly found in the TSBD, that the FBI found NO viable prints anywhere on the rifle, that Postal Regulations required that a parcel addressed to A Hidell would have been returned to sender, and that the money order had no cancellation stamp to indicate that it had been cashed are all ignored.

[OneRound]

...

...

However, in the USA you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald in this case was assassinated by ( another lone nut) before he could mount a defense.

Was there reasonable doubt? The Single Bullet, shot location, putting Oswald in the 6th floor, the trajectories and so on...

Is there a smoking gun somewhere that proves Oswalds innocence? ...

...

Oswald was indisputably entitled to a fair trial. It was palpably wrong he was denied that by Ruby. However, we should not use that wrong to suggest actual innocence upon Oswald's behalf. There is ample evidence of Oswald's responsibility for the murders of President Kennedy and Police Officer Tippit.

In all realistic likelihood at trial, Oswald would either have exercised his constitutional right to silence which would not have impressed the jury or, worse still for him, continued upon the dishonest path he set out upon in the lead up to Kennedy's killing with blatant and obvious lies.

With regard to the final question quoted above, there can be no smoking gun to prove Oswald's innocence as he was not innocent.

OneRound

[Patrick Differ]

Respectfully disagree here. How do you explain the geometric off set by the Kennedy Connally horizontal and vertical planes?

That is refuted by position in the car along the door, the horizontal distance from the book depository, the height to the 6th floor and the moving target. So trying to base this shot on 18.5 frames per second would only be possible through a 3D Laser Scanner with digital twin technology.

Knott used the Leica 360 3D scanner with digital twin to perform this . Leica Geosystems and others perform these scan tests on a range of things like shootings or even the operation of chemical plants. The 360 3D is the most advanced and accurate scanner in commercial use. The Zapruder film was used as input for the analysis.

Why does it matter? Because even if an earlier frame were used at 18.5 frames per second it would not matter, that would have actually made the shot more, not less acute on both planes and would have made the single bullet even harder to explain in a court of law. Garrison, Forman and Wecht figured that out in 1968. Knott proved it using digital twin and advanced laser scanning. The offsets are in inches not millimeters so it makes the single bullet what it was...a creation from Arlen Specter, an attorney, not a doctor, engineer or scientist.

Defense Attorneys would have had a field day with reasonable doubt in this case. Imagine being under oath. Parkland Doctors, Bethesda, trying to prove Oswald was on the 6th floor or killed Tippit. Imagine watching the Zapruder film which on appearance looks alot different than the , after the fact reconstruction of events.

There was no way the government could let Oswald testify. They would be unable to prove there wasn't a second shooter on the grassy knoll. The Zapruder film says otherwise?

In 1963 the evidence was the Zapruder film, the bodies and the guns. Witnesses under oath would have included all the witnesses the Warren Commission didn't call.

[Fiver]

I think Fiver stated this to argue against the possibility of there being anything like a conspiracy to shoot JFK in Dallas. After all, why 'frame' Oswald in advance of a visit that has not even been organised?

My point is that Oswald ordered the rifle in March of 1963. That can't be a frame up unless the Conspiracy has psychic powers.

JFK's Texas visit wasn't announced until April and was originally planned for summer of 1963. The day after that announcement, Oswald moved back to New Orleans.

Plus even if there was a Conspiracy to murder JFK in March of 1963, it wasn't a a Conspiracy to murder him in Dallas. it wasn't even a Conspiracy to murder him in Texas. Any location would do. And why wait 8 months? Most of the alphabet soup of organizations accused of JFK's murder would have had multiple chances before November and with better chances of success.

[Fiver]

But like many comments that appear on this site lecturing assassins as to how to carry out their trade, it simply lacks practical knowledge.

I am assuming that a criminal enterprise wants to succeed in the crime, not get caught, and gain something from the crime. The proposed Conspiracy fails on all points.

None of the alphabet soup of accused organizations had a credible motive. None needed to involve any of the other organizations. All could have chosen better places to attack.

[cobalt]

I can only refer you to my previous posts. A JFK visit to Texas before the 1964 election required no psychic powers. The choice of Dallas could not have been anticipated but since JFK had lost heavily in that area to Nixon in 1960 it was an area where he needed more visibility. As a potential patsy Oswald was not confined to Dallas anyhow.

I am assuming that a criminal enterprise wants to succeed in the crime, not get caught, and gain something from the crime. The proposed Conspiracy fails on all points.

I don't follow your logic here. The conspiracy (the one you think does not exist) succeeded on all the three grounds you mention. The POTUS was assassinated; the perpetrators were not identified; and the political shift under Johnson proved beneficial to those who backed the coup d'etat. Dulles and McCone (central figures in the WC) both had spells leading the World Bank IIRC as part of their reward.

[Patrick Differ]

What witnesses saw Oswald in the 6th floor window? How credible could they be 6 stories down with a window half open and the shooter supposedly perched in the back corner of the window. And in a 6 to 10 second timeframe.

No one. A good team of Defense Lawyers would tear these witnesses apart. Oswald was seen 90 seconds after the shooting on the 2nd floor with a coke by his Manager and a Cop. Could he get from the 6th to 2nd floor in 90 seconds?
Maybe. Doubtful?

Johnson was not a Kennedy fan. Hoover was a blackmailer. The CIA expected Kennedy to support it in the Bay of Pigs which had a 30% chance of success, unless....Kennedy unleashed the Military. He didn't. He refused to risk escalation.

It is a fact that Kennedy was against regime change through assassination which the CIA was using. This is what also tied to the Mafia and their relations with the CIA. Castro the central target. The CIA relationship with the Mafia started with Mob Boss Lucky Luciano in WW2 as the MOB controlled the Ports.

RFK may have gotten his brother killed. Probably also got himself killed.

These were not choir boys. There were reasons for both Kennedys to get murdered. It was a warning by Dwight Eisenhower that unfortunately came true. War is money.

[cobalt]

War is money.

Or 'War is a Racket' as retired US military general Smedley Butler put it.

In 1933, not long after F.D. Roosevelt had been elected, Butler claimed he had been approached to act as figurehead for a proposed fascistic type regime in the USA. FDR would have been retained in a symbolic post but power was to be placed directly into the hands of the banks and the military. Since FDR was viewed by them as no more than a socialist or communist the plotters were only doing the patriotic duty. Butler spurned their offer and blew the whistle on the ones he was aware of. The media discredited his claims and since the scheme had barely advanced beyond plotting level, an inquiry into the 'Wall Street Putsch' was able to sweep the matter under the carpet.

Prescott Bush is a name which often crops up in connection with this largely forgotten event but there is no evidence that links him directly to anything claimed by Butler. Prescott's son George W. H. Bush was in Dallas on 21 November 1963 but left the following morning. As did Prescott protégé Richard Nixon. There is nothing which links either man to the events of 22 November so the fact that there were (including Johnson) three future Presidents in Dallas that day is coincidental.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can only refer you to my previous posts. A JFK visit to Texas before the 1964 election required no psychic powers. The choice of Dallas could not have been anticipated but since JFK had lost heavily in that area to Nixon in 1960 it was an area where he needed more visibility. As a potential patsy Oswald was not confined to Dallas anyhow.



> I don't follow your logic here. The conspiracy (the one you think does not exist) succeeded on all the three grounds you mention. The POTUS was assassinated; the perpetrators were not identified; and the political shift under Johnson proved beneficial to those who backed the coup d'etat. Dulles and McCone (central figures in the WC) both had spells leading the World Bank IIRC as part of their reward.

But it’s obvious stuff Cobalt. The alleged conspirators wouldn’t have wanted anything to go wrong which might have led to the assassination failing.

Like having someone seen or photographed in an area where an assassin shouldn’t have been (like the Knoll) - Now it’s ok to say that no one actually was seen, photographed, filmed or caught but the chances of this happening couldn’t have been more obvious or more in the hands of pure chance. A spectator on the Knoll simply turning around for any reason, a camera catching something behind in the background of the image that they were capturing, someone goes to their car on the car park behind the picket fence. What you are suggesting/implying is that any the ‘conspirators’ who couldn’t have failed to have been aware of these potential issues beforehand took a kind of ‘what will be will be’ approach. That wouldn’t be believable on a minor crime so how can it be believable on the most massive crime in history.

Like having someone firing from the 6th floor (or even planting a weapon to give the impression that someone fired from the 6th floor.) What if someone had come onto the 6th floor intending to watch the motorcade from there and caught the gunman setting up? And even worse - and this is something that those that suggest that Oswald never fired the gun can’t address - what if a couple of Depository workers had indeed been on the 6th floor watching the motorcade at the time of the shooting? How would the plot have looked with them saying that no one actually fired from the 6th floor despite a rifle and shells being found?

I could write a huge list of the things that could very easily have gone disastrously wrong but how can you just write off the immense consequences Cobalt? As if these alleged plotters really did take a ‘so what if we get found out’ attitude? This is just not possible. No one would have undertaken such a massive, earth-shattering project as this with the kind of attitude with which someone might have undertaken stealing a can of beer from a corner shop? They would have wanted a plot as near to perfect as possible, with as few people involved. There’s just no way on earth that they would have left themselves the task of planting prints, faking photos, x-rays and a piece of cinefilm, setting up corrupt autopsies and corrupt commissions when all of that could have been easily avoided.

None of this makes sense Cobalt. No one would have undertaken this kind of plot. No one could possible have thought like this; no one could have had this kind of attitude. And was it the resounding success that you claim. 1. Kennedy died. 2. The majority of the population think that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy involving government agencies. 3. Nothing of significance (that would have justified the risk of killing Kennedy) changed with Lyndon Johnson becoming President.

But everything makes sense when you consider a disaffected little nobody who expected to be caught. It fits like a glove.

[cobalt]

The alleged conspirators wouldn’t have wanted anything to go wrong which might have led to the assassination failing.

I can't disagree with that.

Like having someone seen or photographed in an area where an assassin shouldn’t have been (like the Knoll) -

'Shouldn't have been' according to the WC. I've explained my position on a number of occasions: the conspiracy did not require Oswald as the Lone Gunman. That was the prerogative of the WC. If some other gunman had been photographed behind a picket fence then he could have been alleged to be a pro-Castro malcontent. (A bit like Oswald was.)

What if someone had come onto the 6th floor intending to watch the motorcade from there and caught the gunman setting up?

That's fair point, but we know that someone pretty much did! Bonnie Ray Williams was there from noon till around 12.15 and in theory might have been able to detect some activity in the sniper's nest. He didn't, for reasons that are unclear and doubtless influenced his later testimony given his unenviable position. Why he wasn't steered away, threatened or temporarily kidnapped I have no idea.

There’s just no way on earth that they would have left themselves the task of planting prints, faking photos, x-rays and a piece of cinefilm, setting up corrupt autopsies and corrupt commissions when all of that could have been easily avoided.

They couldn't be easily avoided since the conspirators did not know the line that would be taken by the WC. You are arguing back from the WC Lone Gunman theory instead of considering the assassination from the perspective of the perpetrators. A 'flurry of shells' as described by Kellerman was no problem for the assassins. If anything it might inspire an invasion of Cuba. Or as a second best, intimidate those who could work out what had actually happened. The conspirators had no fear of multiple shooters.

And was it the resounding success that you claim. 1. Kennedy died. 2. The majority of the population think that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy involving government agencies. 3. Nothing of significance (that would have justified the risk of killing Kennedy) changed with Lyndon Johnson becoming President.

1. Kennedy did not die so much as he was actually killed in broad daylight.
2. The majority can think what they want: what can they do about it? Precious little, an important lesson to learn in any plutocracy. The resistance to the coup d'état in Dallas took on a social rather than a political character, especially amongst younger Americans.
3. Foreign policy changed in regard to Vietnam and the oil concessions- dear to the Texas oil magnates- survived until Johnson stood down from office. That's a lot of money going into private pockets before we look at the likes of alleged public servants such as Dulles, McCone, Ford and Bush.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Shouldn't have been' according to the WC. I've explained my position on a number of occasions: the conspiracy did not require Oswald as the Lone Gunman. That was the prerogative of the WC. If some other gunman had been photographed behind a picket fence then he could have been alleged to be a pro-Castro malcontent. (A bit like Oswald was.)

Perhaps Im being slow or that I’ve been inattentive but I just don’t understand this position Cobalt. Are you saying that the conspirators went to all of the trouble of finding Oswald, his rifle, the cartridges, the prints, the Tippit murder, the hand gun, the Walker evidence…all of that but they weren’t really bothered about Oswald taking the blame?

I can’t help feeling that your shaping the conspiracy to account for its fatal flaws.