JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Funnily enough, I did see a declaration from someone that Zapruder (along with a dozen or more other witnesses) was an operative for the CIA. And they had proof. Along with names and pictures of two other gunmen in situ. It's just that nobody would believe them.
Seems like every other person in Dealey Plaza was either a shooter or a CIA agent.

It’s true Joshua. Not one single person was mistaken, there were either lying or they were ‘in on it.’ There must be a ‘sense of embarrassment’ removal operation for conspiracy theorists.

This conspiracy was little short of a miracle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It makes far more sense to me that Oswald was in control of his own movements, and managed to kill the President because he was in sole charge of what was his own plan of action. I can't see how it would have succeeded if a number of shady conspirators had been setting him up for weeks beforehand without his knowledge, and then on the right day and at the right time, they don't even have to wind him up and let him go, because he does a fair impersonation of a lone gunman off his own bat, right down to covering his curtain tracks with rods - sorry, I meant covering his tracks with curtain rods - without the least need for anyone to pull his strings.

James Hanratty lied about where he was when the A6 murder was committed, and his DNA was on the victim's underwear and also the hanky found with the murder weapon, but apparently he wasn't guilty either, but the victim of a complex conspiracy involving everyone from his criminal friends and the police in 1961/2, to the DNA experts forty years later.

We all know that there have been victims of genuine miscarriages of justice, but conspiracy theorists, who see sinister forces behind the scenes everywhere they look, appear to have zero concern for the people they accuse with no proof, or whether their accusations can be justified. It can often look more like a general crusade against all the powers that be, than any genuine concern for the individuals they take it upon themselves to champion.

Love,

Caz
X

Good post Caz.

[Aethelwulf]

Its the other way round I'm afraid, it is you and herlock who have fallen for that .wc nonsense. It was a masterpiece for the gullible it was designed to fool .

"R

Perfectly logical explanation!!!!!! Don't make me laugh .

Real world indeed.

Carrying on shouting 'fake' at everything makes you sound like a massive trump-esque baby.

FYI I haven't looked at, nor do I intend to look at, the Warren Commission. I may not have military grade ballistics knowledge like George but I am qualified to call out utter BS when I see it, like the serial number and not the same gun argument. It's call using your own intelligence Fishy, try it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Carrying on shouting 'fake' at everything makes you sound like a massive trump-esque baby.

FYI I haven't looked at, nor do I intend to look at, the Warren Commission. I may not have military grade ballistics knowledge like George but I am qualified to call out utter BS when I see it, like the serial number and not the same gun argument. It's call using your own intelligence Fishy, try it.

I’d be slightly wary of anyone who claimed to have read the full thing Wulf. There were 26 volumes of investigation text plus a report volume which was 880 pages long on its own. To buy it you’ve probably got to be willing to shell out Ł1500-Ł2000. There’s a set available on eBay for Ł1500 but with one volume missing!

Its available free in the Internet Archive so it’s easy enough to dip in if anyone wants to check anything. This is just a photo of the volumes.

https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/l...-1459514234637

All that just to perpetuate a fraud. I think conspiracy theorists hate weighty volumes. Vince Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, 1600+ pages and so many endnotes and footnotes that he had to attach a cd-rom with each book. They hate it. Dale Myers With Malice, a massively researched 868 page book on the Tippit murder (conclusion - Oswald). They hate it.

If you took a few weeks to knock up a book saying that Earl Warren and Bigfoot killed Kennedy on the orders of Winston Churchill they’d lap it up,

[FrankO]

The actual spray of brain and bone fragments. Jackie didn't climb forward to retrieve part of the President's skull.

Hi George,

Indeed, the actual spray of brain, blood and bone fragments, ended up on the back of the limousine and even on motorcycle officers Martin and Hargis. Harvis never said the spray hit him at high velocity, but instead said that, as the limousine and himself were moving forward, he just drove through that spray and caught it on much of his body and face. Or words to that effect. This is also what you can see on (an enhanced and stabilized version of) the Zapruder film. A spray coming from the president’s head wound, going up and then moving to the back and left of the car, while the car, obviously, is still moving forward. A slight wind could have blown the spray in the direction of Hargis. The spray going up and then backwards doesn't say anything. Added to that that Dr. Humes & Co. concluded that the wound on the president's back of the head was an entry wound and that he found evidence of the exit wound on one of the skull fragments does the rest. The only odd thing remaining is how the fatal shot could have made Kennedy’s body go ‘back - and to the left’ if it was a shot from behind. But that's something we'll probably never know for a fact.

All the best,
Frank

[cobalt]

Conspiracy and politics sup from the same bowl, so no matter the motivation behind the murder of JFK its political significance makes it is inevitable that conspiracy would be suspected from the very beginning. The fact the murder happened in Texas where the Deputy President held power could only add to these suspicions. The execution of the suspect Oswald before trial added to the brew. The fact the Warren Commission was appointed by the political beneficiary of JFK’s assassination was hardly going to allay these suspicions. It would be a credulous citizen who could lay these suspicions aside on the basis of the Warren Commission’s report.

Caz refers to the James Hanratty case which we both know well. Regarding conspiracy a better example might be the case of the Birmingham Six who were prosecuted for IRA bombings which took place in Birmingham, England in 1974. When first arrested they lied about the purpose of their intended return to Northern Ireland, something which was used against them at trial. As HS is always keen to remind us, telling a lie is tantamount to guilt. The forensic evidence against the six men was accepted by the jury and the judge at the time, sentencing them to life imprisonment, regretted the death penalty was not available to him.

The usual conspiracy theorists claimed the men had been framed but after a few appeals the judicial system claimed that revisiting the evidence had, to their minds, only made a strong case stronger. Some CTs claimed a political motive for the sentences but this was waived aside naturally. The men had confessed (under torture they alleged) and the forensic evidence sealed the case. A couple of useful witnesses were found to give evidence against the accused. Case closed.

Well, for almost 20 years. By then a conspiracy theorist and journalist had discovered the genuine bombers of Birmingham and the ‘strong case’ was eventually judged as ‘unsafe.’ Was the journalist ever thanked for his efforts in exposing the conspiracy against the Birmingham Six? Far from it. He was attacked physically last year by relatives of the bombing victims for not publicly revealing the names of the true bombers. (Their names are now in the public domain and have been long known by the UK state security services.)

The about turn by the UK judiciary came as a result of political moves to bring some sort of peace to Northern Ireland. Following the release of the Birmingham Six the Good Friday Agreement was signed a few years later. The same will be the case with the Warren Commission. Until there is a significant change in political direction in the USA the WC will continue to be defended by those holding power.

[jmenges]

Hi Herlock,

I’d ask you what you thought of Douglas Horne’s five volume ‘Inside the Assassination Records Review Board’ -over 2,000 pages- but it’s frighteningly obvious you haven’t read it. What about John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA (600+ pages) or his multi-volume series ‘The Assassination of President Kennedy’ (2,000+ pages).

Lone nutters don’t hold the record for the most elephantine books on the case, but they do hold the record for the largest charades.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll ask what I think are 2 entirely reasonable questions.

You’re in your living room with two friends. The windows are open and you’re looking outside. You’re stunned by what sounds like a gunshot. This is closely followed by 2 more gunshots and the scene outside clearly confirm that shots have been fired. As this is happening you hear the sound of three things hitting the ceiling above. You are absolutely convinced that the shots came from directly above the room that you’re in and your two friends both agree. So…

1. What are the chances of all three of you being entirely wrong and that the shots actually came from outside the building, below and around 130 yards to your right?

2. Clearly my scenario references Williams, Norman and Jarman so I’ll ask, without the scenario, from their location and with no evidence of them being dishonest what makes them less reliable witnesses than those down in the echo chamber of Dealey Plaza? People who now have bullets flying in and around their direction. People worried about being hit by a stray one. People thinking of the safety of those with them, wives, husbands, kids?

If we strip away all consideration of who was the victim of these shots and all talk of conspiracy or lone gunman and we were simply trying to assess the likelihood or otherwise of 3 shots being fired from a window on the 6th floor of a building, how could it be otherwise that the strongest witnesses would be the 3 men in an open window directly below the one in question; so close to the gunman that the gunman could have reached down and passed him the rifle?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I’d ask you what you thought of Douglas Horne’s five volume ‘Inside the Assassination Records Review Board’ -over 2,000 pages- but it’s frighteningly obvious you haven’t read it. What about John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA (600+ pages) or his multi-volume series ‘The Assassination of President Kennedy’ (2,000+ pages).

Lone nutters don’t hold the record for the most elephantine books on the case, but they do hold the record for the largest charades.

JM

Hello Jon,

I don’t see why it’s ‘frighteningly’ obvious. It’s unlikely that many could have read every book on the subject. I’ve been completely open about the books that I’ve read and own. Again I’m guessing at around 45 with around 43 being conspiracy-orientated and I only mentioned them to show that I’m not a long-standing, dyed in the wool lone gunman advocate. The last book I bought was hardly a lone gunman book as it was written by possibly the most famous conspiracy theorist around today. Your perfectly entitled to mention those that I haven’t read Jon and there’s nothing unfair about it but there are two posters on here who have repeatedly slated Bugliosi without taking the time and effort to read him and who refuse to even consider any point that he makes. Yes, there are those on the conspiracy side who criticise him but there are also many who praise and agree with him. You can pick up and read any single book on this subject (including Bugliosi) and someone will be able to produce a lengthy list of what they consider to be errors. Some might see deliberate intention in those errors and some might accept they they are just errors or simply in some cases a difference of interpretation.

On your last sentence Jon I can only ask, which side of the debate produces the barking mad theories. Which side tends to support blatantly dodgy witnesses like Hoffman, Oliver, Crenshaw, Arnold and the like. I do wish the subject could be discussed more objectively a calmly though and yes I certainly accept my share of the blame for that.

On a different subject I’ve just started The Man From The Train by Bill James after reading your review. I’m looking forward to it.

[Aethelwulf]

I’d be slightly wary of anyone who claimed to have read the full thing Wulf. There were 26 volumes of investigation text plus a report volume which was 880 pages long on its own. To buy it you’ve probably got to be willing to shell out Ł1500-Ł2000. There’s a set available on eBay for Ł1500 but with one volume missing!

Its available free in the Internet Archive so it’s easy enough to dip in if anyone wants to check anything. This is just a photo of the volumes.

https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/l...-1459514234637

All that just to perpetuate a fraud. I think conspiracy theorists hate weighty volumes. Vince Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, 1600+ pages and so many endnotes and footnotes that he had to attach a cd-rom with each book. They hate it. Dale Myers With Malice, a massively researched 868 page book on the Tippit murder (conclusion - Oswald). They hate it.

If you took a few weeks to knock up a book saying that Earl Warren and Bigfoot killed Kennedy on the orders of Winston Churchill they’d lap it up,

Sounds like another one to have in store for the next run on bog roll!

You notice as well that every other post by the two amigos starts with 'watch this documentary' or 'watch this video on you tube'. It's just filtered rubbish produced by conspiracy mad nuts looking for gullible victims. Problem with this kind of stuff is that when it's polished up and edited it looks oh so clever. Recall the C5 documentary on Lechmere - all looks so sus on the surface until you look a little deeper (the red outlined figure crouching directly over the body). Like I said to Fishy and as you have pointed out millions of times, all of this conspiracy stuff is easily explained.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds like another one to have in store for the next run on bog roll!

You notice as well that every other post by the two amigos starts with 'watch this documentary' or 'watch this video on you tube'. It's just filtered rubbish produced by conspiracy mad nuts looking for gullible victims. Problem with this kind of stuff is that when it's polished up and edited it looks oh so clever. Recall the C5 documentary on Lechmere - all looks so sus on the surface until you look a little deeper (the red outlined figure crouching directly over the body). Like I said to Fishy and as you have pointed out millions of times, all of this conspiracy stuff is easily explained.

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.

[cobalt]

If the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy then it had to have a ‘patsy.’ The smooth, untouchable master plan laid out by HS whereby JFK was killed by an unknown ‘hit man’ would have sparked more controversy than the Oswald version. That is surely obvious on a moment’s reflection. JFK was not a local drug dealer: he was the President of the United States. An unknown gunman screams political assassination. The lone gunman with a grievance against society was just about credible.

The reach of state power is considerable and when there is a changing of the guard fully understood by those who operate within it. Nazi Germany is an extreme case but perhaps instructive. Most of the judges in Germany by 1933 had gradauated through the Weimar democratic regime. Yet within months of Nazi rule they failed to resist the abrogation of the burned down Reichstag and within a year allowed the ‘Night of the Long Knives’ extra judicial executions to happen without murmur. You don’t need many numbers to run a conspiracy: the message is clear in itself, whether burning the Reichstag or shooting the President in broad daylight. Keep in line and keep your trap shut.

Oswald didn’t have any real buddies in his life and I don’t think he drank much either. He was a bit of an empty vessel which is presumably what attracted the CIA to him in the first place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was just no need for a Patsy. None at all. If people wanted Kennedy dead the dead is dead. Their overriding priorities would clearly have been twofold. 1. Kill Kennedy, 2. Don’t get found out.

The first part was the easy bit. The second part could have been reasonably straightforward but by introducing Oswald as a Patsy they introduced a 1001 ways for the plan to come crumbling down (yes 1001 is entirely random)

One single witness proves that he saw Oswald anywhere but the 6th floor at the time of the shots.
Someone finds an issue with the prints, or the gun etc.
One witness provably sees a 6ft black guy with a limp shooting Tippit.
A bullet from the Grassy Knoll misses and is found.
Or a shot from the side misses Kennedy and hits Jackie.
The pathologists don’t play ball.
Anyone conspirator or 2 or 3 has a pang of conscience and goes public.
Someone takes a clear photo of the Grassy Knoll gunman or film footage.
Some have-a-go hero gives chase to the Grassy Knoll gunman.
A man goes to his car behind the fence and sees the gunman.
The inevitable enquiries post WC find incontrovertible proof of conspiracy.
And many more.

Would any agency take a tenth of the risks above? Would the Government? Would they have risked the massive consequences and irrevocable damage to their reputations and the countries standing in the world? And all to make a symbolic gesture over a simple, effective almost risk-free job?

Surely that’s not believable?

[cobalt]

Most of HS' last points are covered under the Reichstag fire scenario. He has a weak understanding of how political power operates in any system, whether autocratic, oligarchic or self-styled democratic. Time to read Plato's 'Republic.'

Quite an interesting ex tempore news report.

https://youtu.be/9DSFKhaNqqU

Officer Bentley claims that Oswald had ID in the form of a library card, credit card and a driving licence. (He doesn’t state which name this was in: Oswald or Hidell.) So Lee Oswald had a credit card in 1963 working menial jobs? And he had a driving licence although he had never so far as we know passed a driving test? I seem to remember the library card became an issue at some time.
Officer McDonald admits the description of Oswald (for the alleged Tippt shooting) was ‘meagre.’ He also went to the balcony first before exploring the lower floor where Oswald was arrested. Why?

[FISHY1118]

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john...he-magic-scalp




The fake Kennedy photo expose for exactly what it is... FAKE



''Witnesses who saw JFK’s head up close after he was shot, describe damage that is quite different from what shows in certain autopsy photographs and x-rays. And the contrast between the two – the damage they describe, and the evidence on films is so radically different, many researchers suspect evidence tampering.

There are people who defend the authenticity of the evidence by “explaining” the problem with theories that may sound reasonable – but some of these people promote their work in the following ways: (a) they omit significant information that challenges their ideas; (b) they pad their work with irrelevant information – thus obscuring the paucity of proof of their main thesis; (c) they try to shape ambiguous language to mean only what they want it to mean; (d) they make amateurishly omniscient assertions… “This is irrefutable proof… There’s no other explanation… This has to mean…”; (e) they list people who presumably agree with them without showing the reader what exactly they had agreed with, and some of the people are in rest homes, or in graves, or otherwise are hard to reach.''

The perfect description of the Lone Gunman theorist we see on this topic .