JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[DJA]

Cool. Thanks Dave. Any comment on the movie?

The shots are in the wrong sequence.

Probably not far off what happened though.

Greedy bastards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how would Oswald's obvious communism give LBJ leverage over anyone? The only risk of nuclear war was if the American public came to believe that Oswald was acting on orders from Castro or Moscow.

I think that makes the point as clear as it could be. Mexico City was where that was supposed to happen.

The JFK assassination was a political assassination and LBJ cowed the Warren Commission into denying it was motivated in Moscow or Cuba via the person of Oswald. (LBJ’s ‘40 million dead in nuclear war’ scare.) The ugly truth was far nearer to home as LBJ would have known from his base in Texas. Warren Commission worthies Russell and Boggs were racists who Bertrand Russell (no relation) described as having ‘brought shame on their country.’ Gerald Ford, a man described by LBJ as ‘so dumb he can’t fart and chew gum at the same time’ was a Goldwater supporter, the Goldwater akin to Farage or Le Pen in present politics. These were right wingers protecting their own backs and their own power base.

The main voices in support of the Warren Commission have remained right wing. McAdams was screaming ‘conspiracy’ as a university professor some years back when an identity/woke crisis was orchestrated with his considerable help. Except McAdams confected ‘conspiracy’ was about left wing Marxists trying to stifle debate. On this site the bias towards leader worship (sometimes in the form of ‘experts’ or warriors like Bugliosi or saints like Earl Warren or Ruth Paine) is generally from WC advocates.

All of this lack’s one thing…..evidence. Your post is entirely conjecture on your part so why are you trying to claim it as some kind of truth. You keep quoting Bertrand Russell but I fail to see how his opinion is relevant and Ford’s opinion that LBJ was stupid is equally irrelevant. Try using evidence for a change instead of fanciful and utterly baseless theorising. You dismiss the absolute Mount Everest of incontrovertible evidence for Oswald’s very obvious guilt in favour of “well LBJ was a bit of a thicko and not a very nice guy so he obviously ordered Kennedy killed.”

And yet again Ruth Paine is mentioned. Why is there a vendetta against Ruth Paine? No one has found one single shred of evidence to even darken her character. All that you have is that she wasn’t a LHO fan. But despite this she gave him driving lessons and helped find him a job. Oh yeah, you and the buffs hate Bugliosi so you are compelled to denigrate the man who wrote, by an absolutely mild, the best book ever written on the case.

Leader worship? That’s pathetic. It’s typical of an extreme Leftist viewpoint where absolutely everyone in power is evil (without even taking the time to judge them as individuals) You are clearly allowing your own political leanings to cloud your judgment. I’ve only ever voted for the left (the Labour Party) but I manage to keep political bias out of this case.

[FrankO]

1. Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Commission , interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before Earl Warren and his committee. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document.

Hi George,

When did it become classified? I ask this because by the end of 1966 David Lifton, a graduate student, contacted Sibert to ask him some questions about their report, which had find its way into at least 2 books (“The Second Oswald” by Richard Popkin & “Inquest” by Edward Epstein). Even though Sibert told Lifton he couldn’t comment on any of his questions, it seems that the report itself wasn’t kept much of a secret, or at least, it certainly doesn’t seem to have been classified shortly after 22 November 1963.

The important point here is that Humes stated that the back wound terminated in the body. This was before he got his copy of the script.

What do you mean by that last sentence? What script?

3. I'm sure neither of us has such a list and neither of us would care to devote the time to compiling such a list. I thought the uneven spacing of the shots was common knowledge.

Although I had noted that some witnesses stated that the 2^nd and 3^rd shot were close together, I wasn’t aware that this is supposed to be common knowledge. However, the thing is that you wrote “The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.” as if it were an established fact. So I thought you’d have such a list, which is why I asked you about those figures. My stance is: for anybody to make any kind of statement, take any kind of stance, one has to know how many witnesses thought the 2^nd and 3^rd shot were “close(r) together or almost simultaneously” and how many actually didn't or thought otherwise. Maybe I’ll compile such a list.

Just one final question. What do you think about the proposal that there was a Pullman Dining car parked behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll?

I haven’t studied this particular subject in any detail, George, but if it was a lie, then it must have been a humongous one. Also, why would anybody need that Pullman car there, anyway, if it’s supposed to have been a lie? What would have been the goal of introducing it?

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do conspiracy believers explain why there would be unambiguous evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald as a lone gunman in any such surviving written communications? Isn't it 'screamingly obvious' to them that such evidence would never have been allowed to see the light of day if it had once existed?

It never existed and never could have. Anymore than evidence that Macbeth killed King Duncan when he was a guest inside Macbeth’s castle. The ‘patsies’ were killed by Macbeth himself in a fake act of fury. Very convenient. Macbeth became wiser through experience and found a few Jack Ruby types to bump of Banquo. Mass murder followed for both Macbeth and Johnson to consolidate power (in foreign lands in Johnson’s case) until they were removed as a result. Unfortunately for the USA the murder, on the home and foreign front, continues as a result of the Johnson coup d’etat and can be measured in millions.

Johnson controlled the investigation and controlled the verdict. Anyone who did not fall into line was in danger of their career or perhaps worse. There’s no evidence: just scraps and gaps.

You’re getting worse Cobalt, it’s Shakespeare now. You do realise that Shakespeare wrote fiction don’t you?

The questions are too obvious to keep repeating (and you never answer questions anyway, you only ask them) Honestly Cobalt your points are just soooo silly.

Why set up a ‘patsy’ when they absolutely didn’t need one? And a patsy, according to CT’s, who had fraudulent purchase documents which could have been uncovered, and ‘faked’ photos that could have been uncovered…..and fake x-rays made public…..and a faked Zapruder film.

And why didn’t they just fake purchase orders in Oswald’s own name?

You really need to take a more grown up approach.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But miracles do happen, and while the conspirators may only have shared the one brain cell between them, Oswald played right into their clammy hands by proving to be his own worst enemy.

The conspirators pulled it off so they were smart enough. The decision to inaugurate LBJ at Love Field Airport shows the nervousness that existed - he could have been inaugurated on his return to Washington save for fear that RFK had the authority to baulk him. Pulling Jackie Kennedy into the ceremony, whose husband had died in her arms barely two hours earlier, remains one of the crudest public exhibitions of power seizure imaginable. That photo still has the power to shock in terms of its callousness and speaks to the character of those who installed Johnson.

As for clammy hands, the degree to which Oswald was a willing or unwitting participant in the conspiracy is a matter that few can agree upon.

They were so smart that they (according to conspiracy theorists):

Exhibited the wrong rifle to the whole world.

Put a gunman in absolutely the worst imaginable spot in Dealey Plaza (the GK)

Put themselves in the middle of such a complex, far-reaching plot that about a million things could have gone disastrously wrong.

Selected a ‘patsy’ who, due to his time in Russia, was known and could be linked to the FBI.

Selected a ‘patsy’ who stupidly lied with his ludicrous curtain rods story.

Selected the man who was so clever that he was the only person to have fled the scene and without any escape plan which allowed him to be arrested and questioned.

A man who didn’t even make a pretence of doing any work to in some way show that he was otherwise occupied.

Set up an intricate cover up at Bethesda but completely forgot about Parkland.

Then set up a plan to have Ruby kill Kennedy that required Oswald to conspire in his own death.


Try visiting the real world and not your own fanciful, theoretical one which deals only in ‘motives’ and not in evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not having it both ways on Oswald being the perfect patsy as I shall explain. The CIA advice in January 1967 was to emphasise how unsuitable Oswald would have been as part of a conspiracy, so they themselves spotted a problem. That advice is clearly still being taken.

Oswald’s credentials as a ‘patsy’ are glowing in the dark as I have previously explained. He was earmarked for his place in history all right. The surprise job at the TSBD was aided by Ruth Paine who is worth more comment at a later time. The TSBD was not in need of casual labour in October 1963: we know this since about six of the staff were being deployed as a floor laying crew. Rather than lay off staff it made sense to keep them occupied on some menial duties until they could be returned to more urgent activities. Oswald seemed to jump the queue and was given the job of filling orders, a job which required him to visit all the floors of the TSBD. Only once Oswald was inside the TSBD was the decision made (although it may well have been anticipated) to drive the motorcade past the TSBD.

Unmitigated crap. I’ve just given you a detailed rundown of Oswald’s work record which it’s impossible for conspirators to have controlled. Oswald jumped no queues…..the conspirators were just mind-boggling lucky that he didn’t get any of the other jobs that he applied for.

This baseless vendetta against Ruth Paine is both disgraceful and pathetic.

Castro’s argument against Oswald being an unlikely assassin is not an argument against Oswald being a strong candidate as a ‘patsy.’ Castro was a politician himself so he knew how power and propaganda work. He saw off countless US presidents, closed the mafia casinos and brothels and never bowed to the Yankee dollar so he must have known something.

Castro is irrelevant. Oswald was a rubbish patsy. Then again, he clearly wasn’t a patsy.

Of course you don’t need to be Castro to see it is ludicrous that any assassin would shoot from his workplace on a whim; any rational person can see that. But if the assassin is presented as a malcontent, a weirdo, a psycho, a Marxist then the US public might just accept that. If he kills a policeman less than an hour later then that removes lingering doubts about his guilt. Not many will question the narrative much after that, save the usual suspects.

More political fantasy. You are clearly letting your own politics cloud your already poor judgment.

Oswald failed to be the perfect ‘patsy’ when he was not killed while resisting arrest. Remember that no less than three policemen drew a gun on him that afternoon yet he made it back to DPD jail, possibly a unique first in that part of America. His execution by Ruby was clumsy and was probably the moment that most of the world smelled a rat, but by then most assumed Oswald was guilty anyhow. Had he been gunned down as planned by a member of the DPD then I doubt his name would be much more remembered than those of other alleged assassins of the 1960s.

You forget that Oswald attacked Officer Macdonald and pulled a gun on him. The gun that he’d used to kill Tippit.

And while we mention Tippit, what possible reason or benefit would conspirators have had for killing Tippit. Just to add complications and to increase the chances of being caught?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As ive maintained on this topic, to understand Who was responsible and How President Kennedy was Assassinated, one has have an comprehensive understanding of the political and very volatile landscape in which this treasonous act was committed .

If, like some posters here youve had your head in the sand as to American history during this time, then chances are your most likely talking to the people of today who are probably more educated in the lives of the Kardashians, than any real knowledge of the players in the political areana that changed the world that day .

And doesnt it show .

Good post Cobalt .

More nonsense. To understand who killed Kennedy you only have to follow the evidence at it points to only one conclusion…that Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald alone.

What conspiracy theorist need to do is very simple and obvious. They need to stop treating every error and every bit of witness discrepancy as sinister. They need to stop paying attention to witnesses who are clearly and obviously untrustworthy. And they need to stop listening to proven liars like Mark Lane.

And I notice that, yet again, you have no qualms about chucking in an insults whilst sulking at things I’ve said. I’ve never watched a single episode of the Kardashians just for the record. The ‘players in the political arena’ are irrelevant because this wasn’t a conspiracy. Can you or Cobalt or George or PI point to one single piece of actual evidence of people like LBJ or Hoover being involved in the assassination (and I’m not talking about theoretically or in terms of speculative motives?)

And finally can anyone explain how the assassination was in any way a regime change? Do CT’s consider Kennedy a dictator? They do realise that the Democrat party was still in power after the assassination or was the party as a whole in such fear of Il Duce Kennedy they they didn’t have their own opinions and beliefs and that they could only get their own way with him dead? I’ll say it again…

please grow up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great posts cobalt.

I've just watched a movie called "Executive Action", made in 1973, and starring Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Will Geer. The special feature showed the actors being interviewed and saying that they originally believed Oswald acted alone but their reading of the factual parts of the script prompted them to wonder otherwise. The film proposes the How and the Why in a persuasive manner, and shows how Oswald could have been set up as a patsy without his actual knowledge.

Cheers, George

Yeah, stick to the fiction George. As with the Oliver Stone fantasy.

Then again, it’s good to know that Burt Lancaster has solved the case after his all-encompassing research.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Always enlightening to see what passes as credible evidence with you lot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Watching it now , Thanks Also Dave .

All that you need to do is to actually read a book or two that’s not written by biased conspiracy theorists like Lane, Garrison, Marrs, Hurt, Summers, Menninger and Lifton. I won’t bother listing the work of the even more terminally delusional. Like the conspiracy theorist who has actually written a book claiming that Kennedy was killed by Greer and Jackie!

[Herlock Sholmes]

This morning has hit a new low in Conspiracy Theorist posts.

Wulf, Caz, Fiver….they’re just making it too easy. I’m now worried that they have some secret new evidence that they’re about to unleash on us.

Like another forged CIA document perhaps……Marybeth George, Fishy and Cobalt want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that fake?

I won’t hold my breath.

[caz]

The CBS results still prove you wrong, even when you move the goalposts.
Al Sherman: 5.00 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^strun of 5.

William Fitchett: 6.50 seconds (3 borderline hits) on his 1^st run of 3.

John Bollendorf: 6.80 seconds (2 hits, 1 near miss) on his 1^st run of 4.

You do understand the meaning of the word 1st, don't you?

Just about. But I also understand, just about, the word 'exceeded.'

You could just about argue that Flitchett was better than the assassin (but with no head shot.) The others are as good.
Check my posts, as you obviously do, and you will find that I always referred to the ability on the first three shots. This was the point made by the Olympic shooting gold medallist back in 1963- I think he was Austrian. I have a vague memory of the interview as a boy. Very few in the UK bought the LG theory after Oswald was executed then, and I doubt hardly any buy it today.

You really should have learned after all this time how to use the quote function, cobalt - for your own sake.

For the casual reader, your post looks for all the world as if you are arguing with yourself.

As for the LG theory, I did point out that as a primary school pupil in 1963, I was struck by the unfortunate turn of events when I saw Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby, and initially feared, like so many others, that this was no coincidence. [BTW, I do wish you wouldn't use the loaded word 'executed' in this context.] But then I grew up. It should have been 'screamingly obvious' that Ruby's televised actions in that moment would give birth to all manner of conspiracy theories, so anyone pulling the second killer's strings would have had to be as thick as pork scratchings not to realise that this would have the opposite of the desired effect, if that was to have Oswald go down in history as a lone assassin.

While I'm on a roll, how's this for the 'screamingly obvious'? If you want to make a lone assassin out of a 'patsy', supposedly shooting JFK from behind, from his place of work at the TSBD [which no assassin would surely ever do ], and you are already trusting to luck that he will not be with anyone when the shots are heard, it's probably not a great idea to have multiple gunmen firing bullets from other directions, including from the front.

Maybe the gunmen couldn't read their instructions too well, and confused 'iDeally Placed' for 'Dealey Plaza'. Could happen to anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And how would Oswald's obvious communism give LBJ leverage over anyone? The only risk of nuclear war was if the American public came to believe that Oswald was acting on orders from Castro or Moscow.

I think that makes the point as clear as it could be. Mexico City was where that was supposed to happen.

The JFK assassination was a political assassination and LBJ cowed the Warren Commission into denying it was motivated in Moscow or Cuba via the person of Oswald. (LBJ’s ‘40 million dead in nuclear war’ scare.) The ugly truth was far nearer to home as LBJ would have known from his base in Texas. Warren Commission worthies Russell and Boggs were racists who Bertrand Russell (no relation) described as having ‘brought shame on their country.’ Gerald Ford, a man described by LBJ as ‘so dumb he can’t fart and chew gum at the same time’ was a Goldwater supporter, the Goldwater akin to Farage or Le Pen in present politics. These were right wingers protecting their own backs and their own power base.

The main voices in support of the Warren Commission have remained right wing. McAdams was screaming ‘conspiracy’ as a university professor some years back when an identity/woke crisis was orchestrated with his considerable help. Except McAdams confected ‘conspiracy’ was about left wing Marxists trying to stifle debate. On this site the bias towards leader worship (sometimes in the form of ‘experts’ or warriors like Bugliosi or saints like Earl Warren or Ruth Paine) is generally from WC advocates.

So the 'ugly' truth was that they managed to avert the prospect of nuclear war and the end of humanity by demonstrating that JFK was shot by a lone hothead, and not by a politically led conspiracy, as dangerously theorised by large numbers of the impressionable public?

I'm a lefty, but I'm jolly glad I'm still a living lefty, thanks to this 'ugly' LG crew.

[Aethelwulf]

All of this lack’s one thing…..evidence. Your post is entirely conjecture on your part so why are you trying to claim it as some kind of truth.

I have noticed this too. Amongst the CTs Cobalt always writes the most but says the least. Every post is noting but wild ramblings. I like the way he thinks using Times New Roman gives him some extra credibility. Perhaps if used something like Comic Sans he might lighten up a bit.

[caz]

Caz: How do conspiracy believers explain why there would be unambiguous evidence of a conspiracy to frame Oswald as a lone gunman in any such surviving written communications? Isn't it 'screamingly obvious' to them that such evidence would never have been allowed to see the light of day if it had once existed?

cobalt: It never existed and never could have.

So no surviving memos giving orders to suppress the evidence for a conspiracy, in favour of a faked lone assassin verdict? Well that's something I guess.

Anymore than evidence that Macbeth killed King Duncan when he was a guest inside Macbeth’s castle. The ‘patsies’ were killed by Macbeth himself in a fake act of fury. Very convenient. Macbeth became wiser through experience and found a few Jack Ruby types to bump of Banquo. Mass murder followed for both Macbeth and Johnson to consolidate power (in foreign lands in Johnson’s case) until they were removed as a result...

Let me stop you there. You do realise that the eponymous character of the Scottish Play was never meant to be a historically accurate portrayal, but more a study in the evil that men - and women - do? In the play it was Lady Macbeth who set the 'patsies' up to take the blame for Duncan's murder, while Macbeth was quaking with fear about what he had just done.