JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Lewis C]

Lewis- the wait and see refers to document review and follow up if needed. There is fealty in every administration as well as corruption. Deep State or bureacracy within Departments and Agencies is another story. Truth is sometimes elusive but nothing wrong with pursuit.

JFK and RFK had no idea that the State Department was a puppet to the CIA and that Foriegn Policy was being conducted by CIA and not State. They wanted to move away from Dulles and CIA and rebuild the State Department. Regime change through assassination they definately did not want as Policy. Some things were in play when JFK came in. Killing Castro was always there but never attempted.

I've done some more research on this, and apparently there is some doubt about whether there was ever an actual assassination attempt against Castro. However, since Operation Mongoose was plotting such attempts and Castro thought that the US was trying to kill him, I think more likely than not, there was at least one attempt.

Also note the document at the top of the wiki page I've linked to below. It has RFK opening a meeting of Operation Mongoose, and concerned that not as much was being done as should be done. He called for "massive activity" throughout the entire Mongoose framework. General Lansdale said that another attempt would be made against the major target, which had already been the object of three unsuccessful missions. That's not a smoking gun, but I would think "the major target" refers to Castro. RFK's complaint with the CIA appears to be that they weren't doing enough rather than that they were doing too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it doesn’t. The single bullet theory is a fact. It hasn’t been debunked except in flights of fancy. It has been confirmed, substantiated and proven. It should be called the single bullet fact.

[Patrick Differ]

Herlock we appreciate your passion. The single bullet however was debunked in 1963 by Connallys attending personal physician who was an expert in gunshot wounds. The proof was in the bullet hole location of Kennedys shirt and Connallys jacket bullet hole and entrance wound. There was no Yaw or tumbling in the bullet that hit Connally. It was proven to be a seperate bullet. The bullet that hit Connally also tunneled as it exited his check. Unlike the supposed single bullet theory which was never proven because Humes ( in the interest of haste?) decided not to trace the Kennedy entrance wounds. Believe whatever you want but the actual evidence gives another story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s been pointless to continue for years when we’re up against a fantasy. A piece of infantile, gullible nonsense. It couldn’t have happened. Anyone deciding on using this alleged plan to assassinate Kennedy would have had to have been a moron of absolutely monumental proportions. The files have emerged and NOTHING. It’s always going to be NOTHING because there is NOTHING. And yet obsessive still won’t give up. 60 years and not one credible solution has been put forward. Laughable debunked theory after laughable debunked theory. On and on and on it goes. It’s an obsession. All that people are doing is employing a certain type of thinking and then adding a few facts mixed with a huge amount of imagination and assumption. Governments do lie….so this must be a conspiracy/cover-up. So we get lying cranks coming forward like Beverly Oliver and others. Then you get corrupt investigators like Jim Garrison and Mark Lane…proven liars and manipulators. And we get madness. X used to work at a building next door to the building where Y worked. Y had dealings with Z therefore X must have known Z.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. No one makes mistakes. Coincidences can’t happen. Everyone in authority is a liar. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[FISHY1118]

I would have thought post 4356 covered all the "clogged" up excuses were used to by now . It certainly made sense to me.

Unless we get some real objection as to why Scott's post is all nonsense then its pointless to continue any debate .

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Why would they’ doesn’t clog up any debate. It’s a matter of common sense, logic and reason. If some high up group of people, government-based, military influenced, CIA/FBI/Police connected -however you want to describe them, wanted to assassinate JFK would they have initiated a plan involving hundreds of people, which was insanely complex, requiring multiple actions post assassination would they have chosen the one that they allegedly did. There is no need for further discussion. The answer is a resounding NO. Of course they wouldn’t. Therefore this ridiculous, babyish suggestion of a huge conspiracy is an embarrassment to reason. You can present as many proposed ‘links’ as possible. It’s all a figment of peoples desperate inclination to connect any dots they can find. Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. I’m not stating my opinion here. I’m stating a fact. A fact which was proven 60 years ago. Anyone who suggests that the Warren Commission was corrupt is insane.

I’m more tired of this subject than ever. Conspiracy theory thinking is an utter plague on humanity. People should take up train spotting instead.

[FISHY1118]

why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings...?
It makes no sense at all.

This is true statement. You present a clearly a false paradigm of events.
I would submit in response to the “…not one person spilling the beans” there was a gag order. From the HSCA lettter:
We would like the appropriate official to rescind the order of
silence issued to personnel present at the autopsy of President John F.
Kennedy and to notify the personnel accordingly. The memorandum on this
matter from Admiral Horgan to the Surgeon General is attached.
The Select Committee would like any information you have
pertaining to an order, including the order itself, that was given to
Commander James J. Humes on or about November 22, 1963, pertaining to
the nature of the autopsy to be performed on President Kennedy.
(I don’t think the conspirators knew there would be a HSCA, a Church Committee, an AARB. But they would know about military orders of silence.)
The Parkland vs Bethesda question is interesting. It seems to me that If Bill Harvey or David Morales or Edward Lansdale had a multi-shooter situation plan in Dallas, that planning would have multiple patsies. If the event of a Parkland autopsy, two shooters would be found. The JFK conspiracy need not include a cast of thousands. It does need a conspirator at certain switch points; the person who calls Air Force One from the White House Situation room would be one such key position. The primary focus of this plot is a successful assassination. No one would call the Bethesda autopsy a successful autopsy.

The plot was never going to go perfectly, fall back contingencies are in place.
Since the “plan did not go as planned” is something that always happens, a coup has plans for when things do go sideways. For example, what part of Ruby assassinating Oswald in the jail surrounded by Dallas policemen could be planned in March of 1963? None. Killing Oswald would likely be planned. Maybe Tippet was supposed to kill Oswald.

In an earlier post I presented the fact that the FBI had inserted the words “a doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.” into Connie Kritzberg’s story published in the 11/23/1963 Dallas Times Herald.
FIVER corrected pointed out that this “makes no sense” as it serves little purpose.
He is correct, within his paradigm, and wrong be cause of his paradigm. This aggressive act from the FBI accomplishes very little from a 2025 piont of view. Clearly, the FBI response was a knee jerk reaction rather than a planned conspiracy component, This is a FBI power move, a poitical response to to control the perception of the published story. Very similar knee jerk issue with the FBI Minox Camera fiasco. Oswald can not own a James Bond spy document camera. Oswald owns a James Bond spy document camera light meter. (as one does)
The problem begins with the questions we choose.
If the Warren Commission only asks an ‘Oswald question’ the answer is sorted as evidence into a lone nut file. Imagine a reader picks up his first JFK assassination book, he likely begins his journey with the question is Oswald guilty or innocent. This is the Warren Commission question. After a few books, a good reader will realize the better question should be “What Happened?” because the larger issue is political; if this is a coup, are we a democracy?

Thousands of facts have come to my attention that didn't make sense with my point of view.
It is necessary to rethink the paradigm of the assassination to include new information.

Consider these four events; Shooting at Walker, OSWALD a FPCC protestor in Montreal, Attempted outgoing phone call from Dallas Jail
and CIA defector questions

1. The attempt to kill General Walker. Warren Commission quote, witness Walter Kirk Coleman “in a neighboring house claimed immediately after the shooting he saw two men in separate cars drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home. A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting, he saw "two men around the house, picking in the windows. The Warren Commission would like to use the Walker assassination attempt as proof that Oswald was a politically motivated killer. Coleman was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars. Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. Now multiple problems, Oswald could not drive. The witness saw two individual cars and two individual men. So the shooting was a conspiracy to kill Walker. The bullet did not match as Dallas police identified the bullet as 30.06 calibre. Oswald confessed to his wife and left a note. Ok. But problems with the note as HSCA handwriting experts doubted its authenticity. What evidence do we embrace and what evidence do we ignore? If Oswald was there with others, does that mean this event is a trial run"? In this debate we engage in when we discuss the JFK assassination, commonly selective evidence is presented in an imaginary prosecution vs defense format. Cherry picking. The attempt on Walker’s life may have no relationship the JFK murder. Because we seek to prove Oswald innocent or guilty, any resolution of the Walker incident calls for us to interpret, exagerate and ignore inconvient evidence. As always the best question is what happened.

2. This interesting letter sent to the Secret Service that I only became aware of this year. A Canadian customs official, Jean Paul Tremblay, who was focusing on an Cuban case, saw Lee Oswald on the streets of Montreal in August 1963 and he stated he could identify the others with Oswald. This information was ignored by the Warren Commission and will be sorted into the some rumor that doesnt matter bin by advocates of the Warren Commision. On the other hand, if one considers the Tilton/Anderson memo, where the CIA offers to discredit the FPCC overseas in concert with the FBI and requests copies of FPCC letterhead, etc. to manufacture false FPCC ‘events’. Then one would be open to process the Montreal event as fact.
(Seeing this Montreal document reminded me of international travel to Cuba. I met a cigar lover two weeks ago, who had traveled from Seatle to Montreal to Havana to get boxes of Cuban cigars in the 60’s. If Oswald wanted to go to Cuba he could have gotten on a plane in Canada. Cuba wanted American dollars. Oswald did not have to go to Mexico City.)

3. From the jail Oswald attempted his last phone call to a number in North Carolina the “two officials” listened on the line as operator, Louise Swinney never placed a phone call., telling Oswald ‘I’m sorry the number doesn't answer. None of this is planned. But it is a small conspiracy in the moment. as the Secret Service reacts to a situation. This is a cover-up. THEY did it and didn’t have to confer with the CIA, FBI or Dallas Police or Lyndon Johnson. We only know the truth because the HSCA investigated and found the FBI manipulated witness testimony.

4. Oswald as James Bond …There is an image that makes no sense at all. Yet as I examine the other defectors I find it is not easy to determine who may be a spy. A spy is a good actor-“we’ aren’t supposed to know who the spy is or isn’t. We don’t expect the CIA to tell us. Why Oswald defected? Is he a lone nut or a part of something bigger. In fact he is both. Oswald is a useful idiot. Полезный идиот in Russian. Because a lone nut is transient and isolated he can be manipulated and guided, a lone nut is a moveable pawn. I have learned a great deal more about the defectors once I stopped asking the ‘Oswald CIA spy question’ and focused on the path to defect and found Oswald’s personality had much in common with other defectiors; as a group they are more inteligent than smart, naive, narcissistic, socially awkward, passive-aggressive, prone to depression with socially isolated childhoods. I can speculate that Oswald could have been sent by ONI; after all the Marines knew he spoke Russian, was disruptive and isolated with a high opinion of himself. The military does a lot of personalty tests for good reasons. Lee HENRY Oswald is a notional file is created by the CIA in 1960 as tigating demonstrated by the three card OSWALD files on Helms desk. HENRY is put to use in Mexico City. This is a Counter Intelligence program. Current thought by Morley and others is to sugest Angleton played a role in the assasination because of an ongoing CI connection to LHO. I doubt this strongly. Angleton is a mole hunter. DOP is the coup d'état section.

The Kennedy Asssassination is a labyrinth of frustrating paths. I have changed my paradigm tens of times as my understanding of the witness testimony, the autopsy, ballistics, photogaphy and politics has evolved.

Another fascinating post Scott . I might add the "Not Maybe" , More so "Definitely" that Officer Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald..

But again, you articulate the subject of "why would ,why wouldn't they" debate that has clogged up this topic for far too long better than anyone . Cheers .

[scottnapa]

One of my main questions in terms of conspiracy Scott is why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings (involving highly respected doctors apparently willing to betray they’re country, involving fake photos, involving fake x-rays and with not one single person breaking ranks and spilling the beans over he years) when they would have known full well that the body would have been taken first to Parkland with the obvious chance of ambulance men, porters, nurses and doctors seeing the ‘true’ wounds? It makes no sense at all. As I’ve described it in the past, it’s like a bank robber leaving the bank with his bag of cash, running past cctv cameras and members of the public before jumping into the getaway car and only then putting on a mask.

why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings...?
It makes no sense at all.

This is true statement. You present a clearly a false paradigm of events.
I would submit in response to the “…not one person spilling the beans” there was a gag order. From the HSCA lettter:
We would like the appropriate official to rescind the order of
silence issued to personnel present at the autopsy of President John F.
Kennedy and to notify the personnel accordingly. The memorandum on this
matter from Admiral Horgan to the Surgeon General is attached.
The Select Committee would like any information you have
pertaining to an order, including the order itself, that was given to
Commander James J. Humes on or about November 22, 1963, pertaining to
the nature of the autopsy to be performed on President Kennedy.
(I don’t think the conspirators knew there would be a HSCA, a Church Committee, an AARB. But they would know about military orders of silence.)
The Parkland vs Bethesda question is interesting. It seems to me that If Bill Harvey or David Morales or Edward Lansdale had a multi-shooter situation plan in Dallas, that planning would have multiple patsies. If the event of a Parkland autopsy, two shooters would be found. The JFK conspiracy need not include a cast of thousands. It does need a conspirator at certain switch points; the person who calls Air Force One from the White House Situation room would be one such key position. The primary focus of this plot is a successful assassination. No one would call the Bethesda autopsy a successful autopsy.

The plot was never going to go perfectly, fall back contingencies are in place.
Since the “plan did not go as planned” is something that always happens, a coup has plans for when things do go sideways. For example, what part of Ruby assassinating Oswald in the jail surrounded by Dallas policemen could be planned in March of 1963? None. Killing Oswald would likely be planned. Maybe Tippet was supposed to kill Oswald.

In an earlier post I presented the fact that the FBI had inserted the words “a doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.” into Connie Kritzberg’s story published in the 11/23/1963 Dallas Times Herald.
FIVER corrected pointed out that this “makes no sense” as it serves little purpose.
He is correct, within his paradigm, and wrong be cause of his paradigm. This aggressive act from the FBI accomplishes very little from a 2025 piont of view. Clearly, the FBI response was a knee jerk reaction rather than a planned conspiracy component, This is a FBI power move, a poitical response to to control the perception of the published story. Very similar knee jerk issue with the FBI Minox Camera fiasco. Oswald can not own a James Bond spy document camera. Oswald owns a James Bond spy document camera light meter. (as one does)
The problem begins with the questions we choose.
If the Warren Commission only asks an ‘Oswald question’ the answer is sorted as evidence into a lone nut file. Imagine a reader picks up his first JFK assassination book, he likely begins his journey with the question is Oswald guilty or innocent. This is the Warren Commission question. After a few books, a good reader will realize the better question should be “What Happened?” because the larger issue is political; if this is a coup, are we a democracy?

Thousands of facts have come to my attention that didn't make sense with my point of view.
It is necessary to rethink the paradigm of the assassination to include new information.

Consider these four events; Shooting at Walker, OSWALD a FPCC protestor in Montreal, Attempted outgoing phone call from Dallas Jail
and CIA defector questions

1. The attempt to kill General Walker. Warren Commission quote, witness Walter Kirk Coleman “in a neighboring house claimed immediately after the shooting he saw two men in separate cars drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home. A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting, he saw "two men around the house, picking in the windows. The Warren Commission would like to use the Walker assassination attempt as proof that Oswald was a politically motivated killer. Coleman was able to give detailed descriptions of the men and their cars. Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. Now multiple problems, Oswald could not drive. The witness saw two individual cars and two individual men. So the shooting was a conspiracy to kill Walker. The bullet did not match as Dallas police identified the bullet as 30.06 calibre. Oswald confessed to his wife and left a note. Ok. But problems with the note as HSCA handwriting experts doubted its authenticity. What evidence do we embrace and what evidence do we ignore? If Oswald was there with others, does that mean this event is a trial run"? In this debate we engage in when we discuss the JFK assassination, commonly selective evidence is presented in an imaginary prosecution vs defense format. Cherry picking. The attempt on Walker’s life may have no relationship the JFK murder. Because we seek to prove Oswald innocent or guilty, any resolution of the Walker incident calls for us to interpret, exagerate and ignore inconvient evidence. As always the best question is what happened.

2. This interesting letter sent to the Secret Service that I only became aware of this year. A Canadian customs official, Jean Paul Tremblay, who was focusing on an Cuban case, saw Lee Oswald on the streets of Montreal in August 1963 and he stated he could identify the others with Oswald. This information was ignored by the Warren Commission and will be sorted into the some rumor that doesnt matter bin by advocates of the Warren Commision. On the other hand, if one considers the Tilton/Anderson memo, where the CIA offers to discredit the FPCC overseas in concert with the FBI and requests copies of FPCC letterhead, etc. to manufacture false FPCC ‘events’. Then one would be open to process the Montreal event as fact.
(Seeing this Montreal document reminded me of international travel to Cuba. I met a cigar lover two weeks ago, who had traveled from Seatle to Montreal to Havana to get boxes of Cuban cigars in the 60’s. If Oswald wanted to go to Cuba he could have gotten on a plane in Canada. Cuba wanted American dollars. Oswald did not have to go to Mexico City.)

3. From the jail Oswald attempted his last phone call to a number in North Carolina the “two officials” listened on the line as operator, Louise Swinney never placed a phone call., telling Oswald ‘I’m sorry the number doesn't answer. None of this is planned. But it is a small conspiracy in the moment. as the Secret Service reacts to a situation. This is a cover-up. THEY did it and didn’t have to confer with the CIA, FBI or Dallas Police or Lyndon Johnson. We only know the truth because the HSCA investigated and found the FBI manipulated witness testimony.

4. Oswald as James Bond …There is an image that makes no sense at all. Yet as I examine the other defectors I find it is not easy to determine who may be a spy. A spy is a good actor-“we’ aren’t supposed to know who the spy is or isn’t. We don’t expect the CIA to tell us. Why Oswald defected? Is he a lone nut or a part of something bigger. In fact he is both. Oswald is a useful idiot. Полезный идиот in Russian. Because a lone nut is transient and isolated he can be manipulated and guided, a lone nut is a moveable pawn. I have learned a great deal more about the defectors once I stopped asking the ‘Oswald CIA spy question’ and focused on the path to defect and found Oswald’s personality had much in common with other defectiors; as a group they are more inteligent than smart, naive, narcissistic, socially awkward, passive-aggressive, prone to depression with socially isolated childhoods. I can speculate that Oswald could have been sent by ONI; after all the Marines knew he spoke Russian, was disruptive and isolated with a high opinion of himself. The military does a lot of personalty tests for good reasons. Lee HENRY Oswald is a notional file is created by the CIA in 1960 as tigating demonstrated by the three card OSWALD files on Helms desk. HENRY is put to use in Mexico City. This is a Counter Intelligence program. Current thought by Morley and others is to sugest Angleton played a role in the assasination because of an ongoing CI connection to LHO. I doubt this strongly. Angleton is a mole hunter. DOP is the coup d'état section.

The Kennedy Asssassination is a labyrinth of frustrating paths. I have changed my paradigm tens of times as my understanding of the witness testimony, the autopsy, ballistics, photogaphy and politics has evolved.

[cobalt]

I don't think the word 'corrupt' is accurate in relation to the doctors at Bathesda. They were all subject to military authority and had sworn loyalty to that organisation. In simple English, they were trained to follow orders. Anything less would have seen them viewed, probably by themselves, as unpatriotic. No one ever accused Earl Warren of being unpatriotic but that concept was used effectively by President Johnson to shape the subsequent inquiry. What all these men did was, in their eyes, for the greater good of America.

HS doubts the capacity of a government to enforce and then retain secrets at this level. I think history suggests otherwise. What we now refer to as 'The Holocaust' required at least 20,000 employees to be directly engaged in the systematic extermination of Nazi captives, the majority of them Jewish. As Himmler remarked, this 'heroic' work could never be made public and of course it never was within the Reich itself. After about 3 years and close to 2 million killed in specially constructed death camps there was no official recognition of what was taking place. The Final Solution was widely suspected, rumoured, even joked about but even in non Nazi areas it was initially assumed to be propaganda or maybe what we now call a conspiracy theory. Well it was indeed a conspiracy and it was eventually proved to be such after, but only after, the Nazi regime was smashed by the Red Army in Berlin. Had the Nazis retained some power, we would know much less since the Germans would have controlled the subsequent narrative which to some extent they, and their historians, have managed to do.

Had Himmler's feverish dream of striking a peace deal with the allies in order to attack the USSR borne fruit, then there would have been little desire to find skeletons in the former Nazi closet. That's why Himmler ploughed over many of the death camps. Of course you cannot hide so many deaths any more than you can hide the death of JFK; but what you can control, if holding on to power, is the surrounding narrative. That requires loyalty from those who know the ugly truth, and acquiescence from those who prefer not to know the ugly truth.

[Patrick Differ]

Well explained cobalt, its a pity this simple fact is lost on some . Its not rocket science.

1 There was a conspiracy to kill jfk . Which was 2. Then covered up .

At a guess 98% of 2 had nothing to do with or prior knowledge of 1.

The bullet that hit Kennedys back and exited the throat were both round holes. However, Humes never traced the bullet which earlier that day the Parkland Doctors said was an entrance wound to the throat. Im sorry but you do not make that kind of error in judgement in the highest murder case in the World.

The other problem with the throat wound is that Humes based his Report on sketches he was given and not autopsy photos or xrays. In addition, the sketches originally done on autopsy forms show a misalignment on the back entrance to supposed throat exit on both the vertical and horizontal axis. The sketch given Humes shows a side view only on an almost horizontal trajectory. Its basically a fake sketch.

I dont know how you reconcile some of this but the single bullet theory alone has never been proven. The fact that bone was hit makes it highly improbable.

I would like to see an actual test using bone as this test has never been done. It has been proven that a marksman could fire the Carcano in 8 seconds but thats if the gun didnt jam.

There are still too many questions on the chain of custody of the evidence. Humes is given a sketch and doesnt trace the entrance wound? The fails the smell test.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So..

President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1pm

Airforce One took off, carrying Kennedy’s body, at 2.47

The decision about where Kennedy’s autopsy would take place occurred on that flight with Bethesda being selected by Jackie Kennedy from a choice of three.

The autopsy began at about 8 p.m

So let’s estimate that the decision was made by 3.30 on board Airforce One. (It may well have been later)


So our plotters had 4½ hours to find 2 corrupt medical men willing to take part in the biggest cover-up in the nation’s history. One of those men called up another medical man who was also willing to take part in this massive cover-up. Kennedy’s Staff, other corrupt officials, corrupt Nurses, corrupt Porters, corrupt Technicians, corrupt photographers, corrupt x-Ray operatives. All briefed about the plan and sworn to never reveal anything and with those in charge totally confident that no leaks could occur. And all of this in around 4½ hours?


I’m sorry chaps but all that I can say is…get real. This is fantasy Island stuff. Didn’t happen. Couldn’t possibly have happened.

[FISHY1118]

''One of my main questions in terms of conspiracy Scott is why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings''

The conspiracy is not the same as the cover up, albeit there may well be overlapping interests. The conspiracy simply has to kill the President. It makes no difference whether he is shot from the rear, the side or the front so far as they are concerned. Or even from all three positions.

The decision to attribute the assassination to a lone gunman was a political decision made after the event. Anyone who spoke out against this was effectively challenging the transfer of power that had taken place within the USA. Not a good career move.

Well explained cobalt, its a pity this simple fact is lost on some . Its not rocket science.

1 There was a conspiracy to kill jfk . Which was 2. Then covered up .

At a guess 98% of 2 had nothing to do with or prior knowledge of 1.

[cobalt]

''One of my main questions in terms of conspiracy Scott is why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings''

The conspiracy is not the same as the cover up, albeit there may well be overlapping interests. The conspiracy simply has to kill the President. It makes no difference whether he is shot from the rear, the side or the front so far as they are concerned. Or even from all three positions.

The decision to attribute the assassination to a lone gunman was a political decision made after the event. Anyone who spoke out against this was effectively challenging the transfer of power that had taken place within the USA. Not a good career move.

[scottnapa]

No one impersonated Oswald. As has been pointed out numerous times if you want to ‘impersonate’ someone you don’t choose someone that looks absolutely nothing like him. This was simply a case of mistaken identity. Read Shenon.

Yes, Margarette Oswald made a mistake and the Mystery Man is NOT Jack Ruby. No one suggests that.
I have submitted ten posts on the Mystery Man since I recovered from my retina surgery.
Perhaps the Mystery Man is asset of the CIA. If so, it’s an interestingly mediocre choice as Oswald imposter, as no one who knew Oswald would be fooled. The Russian and Cuban Embassies see Lee Henry OSWALD who is 35 years old, 6 foot, athletic, balding top, looks American, wearing khaki. He speaks broken Russian, converses with Cubans in Spanish. The real Lee Harvey Oswald is 22 years old, 135 pounds, 5 foot 9 inches tall, Slender; Oswald is fluent in Russian, Lee H. Oswald can barely navigate a Mexican menu.
The CIA sent the photo and tapes to DALLAS FBI and they were not a clearly not Lee H Oswald.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...07&relPageId=2
The Mystery Man is known to CIA. Chief of Mexico CIA station Winston SCOTT memo to JC KING on NOV 22 1963
refers to the identity of the “Mystery Man” as “a certain person known to you” (1st document)
The CIA had pictures of the real Oswald in Mexico City; HSCA testimony of CIA agents Stanley Watson & Joseph Piccolo.
On Nov 22^nd 1963 Richard Helms Department of Plans had three 201 file “cards” at his desk. (2nd document)
Lee Henry OSWALD, a Marine who defected to Russia, Lee H. OSWALD, a Marxist involved in FPCC;
Lee Harvey OSWALD, a defector who denounced America and became citizen of USSR!
Original 201 Lee H Oswald file created 13 Oct 1959, Lee Henry Oswald 201 file created on 9 Dec 1960(3rd document)
Lee Henry OSWALD is a "marked card". Part of a ploy. The CIA is setting a trap for whoever may leak information at the Dept of State. Henry is a file a notional character, not a person. There is no evidence the CIA has a role for Lee Harvey Oswald other than being a useful idiot in this espionage scheme. The CIA has nothing lose.. If Oswald commits suicide in the Berlin Hotel in Moscow, no one at the CIA would shrug.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two hours before you posted this, there was a post and conversation discussing one of the witnesses that recently spoke before Congress. Dr Don Curtis, a Parkland doctor who saw the wounds of JFK, just told Congress: “The two bullets that killed President Kennedy came from the front.” He said Oswald did not fire the fatal shots. “The wounds are not consistent with the government’s findings.” Very powerful statement. Very specific by a witness that was there.
Lock, I do not expect to convince you to change your mind. You believe Oswald acted alone. That's fine.

I know that the majority of the Parkland doctors believed that they had seen a wound at the back of his head but it was by no means all of them. How could they have seen it clearly when Kennedy’s head was resting on the very spot where the wound is alleged to have been. It was a high pressure time, they were focused on trying to resuscitate the President. They were young, not particularly experienced men who one minute were eating sandwiches or doing other work but 10 minutes later they are trying to save the life of the most powerful man in the world. Not all of them were near the head and blood would have run down to the back of his head. So there was blood, hair and whatever gunge pooled at the back of his head. Hardly surprising that they assumed it an exit wound, but no one lifted Kennedy’s head to look. One of the two senior doctors, Charles Carrico (who also thought that he’d seen a wound at the back of Kennedy’s head) was asked by Vincent Bugliosi if it’s possible that he could have been mistaken. He replied “absolutely.” McClelland originally listed the wound on the wrong side before moving it slightly forward when talking later.

One of my main questions in terms of conspiracy Scott is why would the conspirators go to all of the complex trouble of setting up a corrupt autopsy to give fake findings (involving highly respected doctors apparently willing to betray they’re country, involving fake photos, involving fake x-rays and with not one single person breaking ranks and spilling the beans over he years) when they would have known full well that the body would have been taken first to Parkland with the obvious chance of ambulance men, porters, nurses and doctors seeing the ‘true’ wounds? It makes no sense at all. As I’ve described it in the past, it’s like a bank robber leaving the bank with his bag of cash, running past cctv cameras and members of the public before jumping into the getaway car and only then putting on a mask.