JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I'll give a genuine answer to your divisive questions.

E] I couldn't care less, except it wasn't a rifle.

I was making a point that it was equally as likely that you could fit a rifle in your handbag as it was that Oswald could have fitted a rifle in the bag the size of which two witnesses described. Perhaps I underestimated the size of your handbag?

And that puerile question wasn't intended to be divisive, George?

One of those witnesses first estimated the length of Oswald's package as 36 inches, didn't she? How is it possible to be that crap at estimating the length of something, if it was comparable to the size of one of her handbags?

And later she altered that estimate, didn't she?

Hardly a reliable indicator of actual size, and most certainly not irrefutable proof that this was just Oswald's larger than average lunch box.

And I take it all back. Size does matter after all, but where a man might add a couple of inches to his own weapon, you go one better and subtract them from someone else's. You're kidding nobody.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hi Abby,

The decision by JFK to visit Texas was agreed in June 1963 and the details ironed out right up until a couple of days before the motorcade, which was not initially part of the planned short visit. The decision to have a motorcade through Dallas was agreed in September, before LHO obtained work at the TSBD. The decision for JFK’s speech following the motorcade to take place at the Trade Mart was made around 4^th November which is crucial: it came after LHO had obtained work at the TSBD and opened up Elm Street as the best route to the Stemmons Freeway. The initial idea had been for the motorcade to travel down Main Street but due to a concrete barrier blocking a turn on to the Stemmons Freeway the route was changed to Elm Street. It is not clear who made this decision and when.

The route of the motorcade was published on 19^th November so unless Oswald had insider information, this is the earliest he could have known about it. Oswald’s CIA connection, long suspected and dismissed by WC advocates, is now confirmed. He was not a fantasist who imagined he was a cold war spy, complete with an A. Hidell alias and a torn half dollar bill in his wallet to establish his credentials to a his ‘handler;’ he actually was a CIA asset of some sort. The question remaining is to what extent he was actively working for the CIA at the time of the assassination or to what extent he was being misled by the agency.

No credible motive has ever been supplied for Oswald shooting JFK. Oswald spoke well of the President and as a keen follower of politics would have known that who replaced JFK would have been no improvement. The idea that Oswald dreamed of being given a hero’s welcome in Havana for his efforts is preposterous: Castro would have had him deported on the first available plane out of Cuba for fear of being invaded. Oswald’s calmness and measured delivery was noted by many who encountered him and he would have been fully aware of the consequences of seeking sanctuary in Cuba.
If Oswald was the disgruntled loner of WC mythology then he had pulled off the assassination of the century and would surely have revelled in his deed. As an inspiration to those at the lower end of society- that resistance was possible- his place in history would have been assured. Yet Oswald did none of this.

I don’t believe Oswald shot anybody on 22^nd November. He was in the lunch room when JFK was shot and in the movie theatre when Tippit was shot, waiting for his ‘handler’ to explain to him what the hell was going on. When the police burst in he realised he had been set up as a ‘patsy.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

The public wasn't required to 'accept' anything Cobalt.

I have to disagree. Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI announced: 'This case has got us stumped. It was a cold, calculated hit.' James Angleton of the CIA admitted: 'Despite extensive enquiries we are no further forward in identifying the assassin. It's all a bit of a mystery.' So the public are told to let the matter rest and move on?

All that I’d say Cobalt is to restate that dead is dead and that crimes do go unsolved. If an unnamed killer shot Kennedy from the 6th floor then escaped to a waiting car would anyone really have been that surprised that the gunman couldn’t be traced? A killer wearing gloves to leave no prints; any identifying numbers filed off; or even a stolen gun. With no cctv to rely on would I be so inexplicable that a killer might have gotten away? Consider the confusion at the time. As we all know, DP was an echo chamber so it might easily have been 10 or 15 until a witness or two mentioned that they thought the shots came from the sixth floor? How far away could a killer have been in that time? The public might not have been satisfied as you suggest (and I agree) but I can’t help asking what the conspirators would have been more concerned about, an unidentified killer or a killer caught and traced back to them? My suggestion would also allow the conspirators to arrange a conclusion. Some ‘likely type’ gets killed in a shoot out somewhere like John Wilkes Booth and the CIA or FBI spin the story - we tracked him down using brilliant detective work, there was a shoot out, one dead assassin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not to me, Herlock.

And what about the motive? I can see why a disaffected, trigger-happy loner, or group of violent, asocial political extremists, would do this kind of thing and not dwell too much on the personal consequences. But a range of supposedly intelligent, but highly corruptible professionals, representing various authorities and fields of expertise, are persuaded to go rogue by their own, or someone else's glorious vision of a USA without JFK? Presidents come and go, and normal people just wait for a different one to be elected if they don't like the cut of the current incumbent's jib. They don't generally feel so strongly that they rise up en masse to support a conspiracy to assassinate one in office, and hope nobody spills the beans when their world is no better for it.

Love,

Caz
X

This is the part that I don’t understand Caz but what I certainly do understand is that those that support a conspiracy are reticent to the point of silence in even attempting to address this. There are so many points in this case that are debatable. That even experts in certain fields don’t agree, so we debate them endlessly. But when we ask these perfectly valid questions we get with silence or they are just skimmed over. Or some ‘offence’ is manufactured to create grounds for not responding. For me, these 4 points disprove a conspiracy.

And I make no apologies for repetition. I think that repetition is justified when the points in question have been ignored.

1. Would authorities set up someone that could be traced back to themselves?

2. Would they have refused a simple, efficient effective plan in favour of a massively complex one where 100’s of things could have gone wrong?

3. Would they have involved so many people given how poor we know that many people are at keeping secrets?

4. And how could they have been remotely confident that they could have ensured the cooperation of police officers, Secret Service officers, CIA officers, FBI officers, Doctors, Pathologists, Ballistics experts, photographic experts, handwriting experts, medical/chemical experts, the family, witnesses, Jack Ruby and the entire Warren Commission and staff?

And they allegedly achieved all of this in 3 days. It’s impossible Caz. But this gets ignored I’m afraid.

[caz]

To Jonathan, GB and fishy
Do you all think Oswald wasnt a shooter and or didnt even have a gun? Did he even know about the plot to kill the president?

It would be interesting to see each of your individual story of the details of the conspiracy-who, what why etc etc. and oswalds role in it, if any.
The non conspiracy(oswald acted alone) story is pretty straight forward and well known-but im hazy on the details of yours.

I ask this in all sincerity, im genuinely interested. Full transparency-- as Ive stated before, although I lean toward oswald acting alone, Im completely open to a conspiracy, or at least a second shooter. Would love to know your detailed "theory"/idea.
Please no links or referring to other researchers work-Just in your own words.

Great idea, Abby.

The how and the why intrigue me most.

I can absolutely believe there was some kind of judicious conspiracy after the event, to keep a lid on proceedings and limit what was released to the public, while they worked on damage limitation if it proved necessary. Nobody could have been sure of the assassin's motivation, or whether others were involved or pulling strings. But 'conspiracy' is such a loaded word, so I'd prefer to call it a pooling of resources, expertise and intelligence, while trying to establish for themselves what had just happened, how and why.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby,

The decision by JFK to visit Texas was agreed in June 1963 and the details ironed out right up until a couple of days before the motorcade, which was not initially part of the planned short visit. The decision to have a motorcade through Dallas was agreed in September, before LHO obtained work at the TSBD. The decision for JFK’s speech following the motorcade to take place at the Trade Mart was made around 4^th November which is crucial: it came after LHO had obtained work at the TSBD and opened up Elm Street as the best route to the Stemmons Freeway. The initial idea had been for the motorcade to travel down Main Street but due to a concrete barrier blocking a turn on to the Stemmons Freeway the route was changed to Elm Street. It is not clear who made this decision and when.

The route of the motorcade was published on 19^th November so unless Oswald had insider information, this is the earliest he could have known about it. Oswald’s CIA connection, long suspected and dismissed by WC advocates, is now confirmed. He was not a fantasist who imagined he was a cold war spy, complete with an A. Hidell alias and a torn half dollar bill in his wallet to establish his credentials to a his ‘handler;’ he actually was a CIA asset of some sort. The question remaining is to what extent he was actively working for the CIA at the time of the assassination or to what extent he was being misled by the agency.

No credible motive has ever been supplied for Oswald shooting JFK. Oswald spoke well of the President and as a keen follower of politics would have known that who replaced JFK would have been no improvement. The idea that Oswald dreamed of being given a hero’s welcome in Havana for his efforts is preposterous: Castro would have had him deported on the first available plane out of Cuba for fear of being invaded. Oswald’s calmness and measured delivery was noted by many who encountered him and he would have been fully aware of the consequences of seeking sanctuary in Cuba.
If Oswald was the disgruntled loner of WC mythology then he had pulled off the assassination of the century and would surely have revelled in his deed. As an inspiration to those at the lower end of society- that resistance was possible- his place in history would have been assured. Yet Oswald did none of this.

I don’t believe Oswald shot anybody on 22^nd November. He was in the lunch room when JFK was shot and in the movie theatre when Tippit was shot, waiting for his ‘handler’ to explain to him what the hell was going on. When the police burst in he realised he had been set up as a ‘patsy.’

Tippit was shot around 1.10-1.15. He was pronounced dead at 1.25. Johnny Brewer, the owner of a shoe store, was listening to events on his radio. He heard about the murders of Kennedy and Tippet. He then saw Oswald behaving strangely before ducking into the Texas Theater. He told the ticket seller to call the police. Oswald couldn’t have been in the Texas Theater at the time of the murder.

Oswald claimed that he’d been eating his lunch on the first floor with Junior Jarman but Jarman said that this wasn’t true.

[OneRound]

It’s certainly the case that conspiracy has more appeal than the more prosaic lone gunman theory and virtually every documentary that shows up is a conspiracy based one. So people tend only to hear one side of a very complex case and I think it’s become an assumption that there must have been a conspiracy. Over the years I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been in company when the ripper murders have been mentioned and it’s been assumed that the case was solved. “I saw a documentary which proved it was…” Maybrick, Sickert, Prince Eddy etc.

Although I strongly favour Oswald alone, I’ll happily consider the possibility that Oswald might have been encouraged or even assisted but I can only see it as being by a very small ‘group.’ Maybe even just a drinking buddy. Maybe a few in the Russian emigré community who were anti-Kennedy but I just can’t go for the massive conspiracy that’s suggested because it would have required a mind-boggling level of multi-agency control. As Benjamin Franklin said “three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” What about 100’s? Why do we have to assume stupidity? That these groups with all of the resources that they had wouldn’t simply have got a top marksman with a top quality rifle. Take a room anywhere above a known motorcade route in any city. One or two shots. Exit the building immediately into a waiting car and gone. No suspect to be interrogated. No connection to any group. No plot to kill a random Police Officer no hare-brained plot to get a local night club owner to assassinate the assassin and no need to risk the assassin being interrogated. Kennedy just as dead. Even Kennedy himself said that if someone really wanted to kill him that’s all that they would need to have done. But they avoid this low risk, no follow up planning or cover up required, simple to set up plan in favour of an insanely complicated one of setting up Oswald, planting and falsifying evidence, finding corrupt pathologists, corrupt police officers, corrupt FBI, corrupt CIA, corrupt Secret Service, corrupt military, corrupt ballistics and photographic experts, a corrupt Chief Justice, 6 other corrupt commissioners along with corrupt counsels and staff followed by 3 other corrupt enquiries into the case. We can quibble over details in a complex case where numerous errors, conflicts and discrepancies were unavoidable but on the big picture point…..no. Not a chance.

Hi folks,

I've recently glanced at this thread with a mix of natural interest and a growing sense of bemusement.

For me, Herlock is on the money and especially in the bit I have emboldened above. It made me think of a comment by a poster - I'm pretty sure it was Victor - some years ago concerning James Hanratty and the so called ''A6 murder'', a case with which references have already been made here. Victor was satisfied as to Hanratty's guilt (as I am even though I do not consider it was fairly proved) whilst acknowleding the continuing uncertainties surrounding the case. Victor squarely put those lasting uncertainites down to Hanratty for never ''explaining his own starring role''.

I very much doubt that all will ever be known about Kennedy's assassination but am sure that ignoring Oswald's starring role is not the place to start.

Best regards,
OneRound

[caz]

A thought. We have Lee Harvey Oswald with an apparent CIA connection regarding his stay in Russia. We also have the story of his note to the FBI office complaining about Marina being hassled. Nothing there to connect him to any assassination conspiracy of course but he certainly would have been a person that the authorities might have had an interest in keeping tabs on. A man returning from a stay in The Soviet Union returns home with a Russian wife and spends time with the Russian emigré community - how could they be sure where his loyalty’s lay? Could he have been ‘turned’ by the Russians? We all know how popular communists were.

This of course would provide a motive for the CIA and the FBI to conceal anything connected with Oswald’s past. Rumours spread easily and 2+2 often equals 5, so not only wouldn’t they want any suspicion of involvement in the assassination but they wouldn’t have wanted it found out that they knew all about this potential traitor and left him at large to murder the President.

So talking of plots and how easily unwanted and dangerous information can slip out - would Lee Harvey Oswald (who went to Russia with the CIA hoping for information/ who came back married to a Russian and so potentially might have gained Russian sympathies/ and who was supposedly being kept tabs on by the FBI which hints at them having concerns bout his behaviour) really have been someone that they would want to frame for the murder of the President? I’d have thought that they’d have been much better served by proving him innocent and that the murder of Kennedy was by some unknown who had slipped away before the police searched the TSBD fully? Of all the people to frame it’s hard to think of anyone worse than Oswald; especially as he was left free to spill the beans after the assassination.

Bingo.

Of all the people to frame, Oswald would have been the ideal choice if the aim was to have conspiracy theorists crawling all over it from that day to this.

If only there had been some impressionable, preferably religious, f***wit nobody in Texas at the time, with an unhealthy firearm obsession [is there ever a healthy one?], no known political ideologies and a life that was going nowhere, who could have been tempted with the thought of instantly becoming a somebody and achieving worldwide infamy with just a couple of well-aimed shots. But where would the fun be for the conspiracy theorists, given so little red meat to feast on?

A useful idiot as described above, could have been apprehended with ease and identified, without the need to silence him, because what could he say? "They made me do it." "Who did?" "I don't know." "The voices in your head?" "I told you, I don't know."

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bingo.

Of all the people to frame, Oswald would have been the ideal choice if the aim was to have conspiracy theorists crawling all over it from that day to this.

If only there had been some impressionable, preferably religious, f***wit nobody in Texas at the time, with an unhealthy firearm obsession [is there ever a healthy one?], no known political ideologies and a life that was going nowhere, who could have been tempted with the thought of instantly becoming a somebody and achieving worldwide infamy with just a couple of well-aimed shots. But where would the fun be for the conspiracy theorists, given so little red meat to feast on?

A useful idiot as described above, could have been apprehended with ease and identified, without the need to silence him, because what could he say? "They made me do it." "Who did?" "I don't know." "The voices in your head?" "I told you, I don't know."

Love,

Caz
X

Makes sense Caz. It’s also worth noting how many on the conspiracy side say “Oswald was a poor shot,” and “the Mannlicher Carcano was a crap rifle.” Then why did our conspirators think that selecting a crap shot firing a pile of junk would amount to a convincing plot?

Of course the evidence tells us that Oswald was an decent shot as far as the military went and above average compared to the average Joe and at least one military weapons expert said that the Mannlicher was about as good as the rifle then currently used by the military. The conspiracy side want to have their cake and eat it though.

[caz]

Hi Abby,

The decision by JFK to visit Texas was agreed in June 1963 and the details ironed out right up until a couple of days before the motorcade, which was not initially part of the planned short visit. The decision to have a motorcade through Dallas was agreed in September, before LHO obtained work at the TSBD. The decision for JFK’s speech following the motorcade to take place at the Trade Mart was made around 4^th November which is crucial: it came after LHO had obtained work at the TSBD and opened up Elm Street as the best route to the Stemmons Freeway. The initial idea had been for the motorcade to travel down Main Street but due to a concrete barrier blocking a turn on to the Stemmons Freeway the route was changed to Elm Street. It is not clear who made this decision and when.

The route of the motorcade was published on 19^th November so unless Oswald had insider information, this is the earliest he could have known about it. Oswald’s CIA connection, long suspected and dismissed by WC advocates, is now confirmed. He was not a fantasist who imagined he was a cold war spy, complete with an A. Hidell alias and a torn half dollar bill in his wallet to establish his credentials to a his ‘handler;’ he actually was a CIA asset of some sort. The question remaining is to what extent he was actively working for the CIA at the time of the assassination or to what extent he was being misled by the agency.

No credible motive has ever been supplied for Oswald shooting JFK. Oswald spoke well of the President and as a keen follower of politics would have known that who replaced JFK would have been no improvement. The idea that Oswald dreamed of being given a hero’s welcome in Havana for his efforts is preposterous: Castro would have had him deported on the first available plane out of Cuba for fear of being invaded. Oswald’s calmness and measured delivery was noted by many who encountered him and he would have been fully aware of the consequences of seeking sanctuary in Cuba.
If Oswald was the disgruntled loner of WC mythology then he had pulled off the assassination of the century and would surely have revelled in his deed. As an inspiration to those at the lower end of society- that resistance was possible- his place in history would have been assured. Yet Oswald did none of this.

I don’t believe Oswald shot anybody on 22^nd November. He was in the lunch room when JFK was shot and in the movie theatre when Tippit was shot, waiting for his ‘handler’ to explain to him what the hell was going on. When the police burst in he realised he had been set up as a ‘patsy.’

Hi cobalt,

Who engineered work for Oswald at the TSBD, after it was agreed for a motorcade through Dallas? How was this arranged, and what would have happened if either Oswald or his employers had not played ball, or if he had taken a sickie on the crucial day, or had been taken ill after arriving at work?

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctored Whatsit]

Try watchin the real footage from 1975 on a late night t.v show hosted by Geraldo revera ,its on YouTube .then comment of what you wrote.

Get the facts

Hi Fishy,

You've lost me here, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that the colour slides of each individual frame of the Zapruder film provided to the Commission by Life Magazine are fakes? Life Magazine bought the original film and the rights to use it. If any fakery exists it had to be done by the magazine. Why would they do this when other copies exist and their work could be shown to be falsified? They considered the slides of the fatal shot to be unsuitable for use in their magazine.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi folks,

I've recently glanced at this thread with a mix of natural interest and a growing sense of bemusement.

For me, Herlock is on the money and especially in the bit I have emboldened above. It made me think of a comment by a poster - I'm pretty sure it was Victor - some years ago concerning James Hanratty and the so called ''A6 murder'', a case with which references have already been made here. Victor was satisfied as to Hanratty's guilt (as I am even though I do not consider it was fairly proved) whilst acknowleding the continuing uncertainties surrounding the case. Victor squarely put those lasting uncertainites down to Hanratty for never ''explaining his own starring role''.

I very much doubt that all will ever be known about Kennedy's assassination but am sure that ignoring Oswald's starring role is not the place to start.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hello OneRound,

We now have 2 escapees from the A6 thread (I don’t count Caz because she regularly gets over the wall) I’m waiting for Moste to turn up.

Thanks for the comments. Yes, although Oswald’s military background and link to the CIA might, and do, raise eyebrows we can’t assume that this automatically means that he was set up to kill Kennedy by them. A persons background doesn’t always point to his future. Maybe an ex-military buddy or two or perhaps a disaffected CIA former contact contact who ‘went rogue,’ might have in time planted the seed or discussed the how to’s but they couldn’t have done this in advance and we would have to rely on a pretty large stroke of luck in that the motorcade was only planned to pass the TSBD 4 days earlier and announced in the papers 3 days earlier. Way too much hoping to luck was required for a larger conspiracy in my opinion. To much control of too many disparate factions and factors. Too much the could go wrong with the unthinkable consequences for the plotters not to mention the country. Its surely worth looking at those who knew him and who spoke at the time.

His wife Marina, right up until the HSCA and after, absolutely believed him to have been guilty. Apparently she now thinks him innocent but this is after years of hearing conspiracy theorists telling her that she might not have been the wife of one of America’s most hated men after all. She was no mug….she even tried to get the Mannlicher Carcano back (even though many claim that it wasn’t Oswald’s) so that she could auction it off.

His brother Robert, he died in 2013, but he was convinced of Oswald’s guilt. When asked about it in 2004 he said in an interview with ABCNews: “To me, his psyche at that particular time, he was basically saying "I'm smarter than you. You gotta catch me. I'm gonna tell you no, I didn't do anything. You've got to prove to me, and then I'm still gonna outsmart you.” When asked about Oswald’s “I’m a patsy” comment he said in the same interview: “It means zero. It's a continuation of Lee's personality. He's telling everybody, "I'm still in command here. They got the wrong guy, and they're not gonna be able to prove it." He is still in command, OK? That's what he wants to do. He's gonna show up the authorities no matter who they were that he knew what they wanted to know. He's the center of attention. That's where he wants to be. That's where he is, and he's gonna play it for all it was worth.”

Ruth Paine, who knew them both well, said that Oswald was the kind of man who believed that he was cleverer or better than others. Someone who thought that he wasn’t appreciated enough. And although I can’t produce any quotes at the moment I seem to recall a member of the Russian emigré community or two, when asked if he was the type to do what he’d done, say yes.

He was the time that didn’t mix much. He beat his wife. He was a miser. He defected. He came back. He wanted to return. He had a short fuse. This isn’t ‘just a normal guy.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Fishy,

You've lost me here, I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that the colour slides of each individual frame of the Zapruder film provided to the Commission by Life Magazine are fakes? Life Magazine bought the original film and the rights to use it. If any fakery exists it had to be done by the magazine. Why would they do this when other copies exist and their work could be shown to be falsified? They considered the slides of the fatal shot to be unsuitable for use in their magazine.

I’m afraid that he is Abby. Some believe the Zapruder film faked, or altered. Like the autopsy x-rays are faked, and the autopsy photos are faked, and the Neely Street photograph is faked, and the order forms for the rifle and revolver are fakes, and all the fingerprint evidence was faked. None of these were faked of course, but they need to be fake because they show the unpalatable (to many) truth. There was clearly no gaping wound to the back of Kennedy’s head and there was very clearly a single bullet entry wound at the back of his head. The footage also shows (disputed naturally) that a soon as the bullet struck Kennedy it can be seen the his first movement is forward (around three inches I believe) Some claim that this part of the film was reversed but I don’t think that we need waste any time on that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi cobalt,

Who engineered work for Oswald at the TSBD, after it was agreed for a motorcade through Dallas? How was this arranged, and what would have happened if either Oswald or his employers had not played ball, or if he had taken a sickie on the crucial day, or had been taken ill after arriving at work?

Love,

Caz
X

You probably already know this Caz but Oswald was looking for work in Dallas so that he could afford to get a place for himself, Marina, June and the new baby. Ruth Paine just happened to meet someone at a party who worked at the TSBD. She asked was told to get Oswald to apply in person (this person was just an employee and don’t know whether he/she actually knew that there were vacancies though)

[Aethelwulf]

waiting for his ‘handler’ to explain to him what the hell was going on.

Turns out LHO was also using the alias 'Al Satian'. Fits with your shaggy dog story.