JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

Very detailed post George . Thanks for posting more evidence that suggest there was more than one shooter , that which the WC completely ignored .

[FrankO]

Hello FrankO,

I'm not knowledgeable enough about firearms, wounds caused by them, nor possible shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, to answer your questions.

There were certainly plenty of locations on high buildings in the Plaza.

I would suggest that the alternative to what I have argued is considerably more farfetched.

I don't need to explain exactly how Connally was hit by a separate bullet from one that hit Kennedy to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that is what happened. Half of the occupants of the presidential limousine were quite definite about that and the Warren Commission had to falsify the location of one of Kennedy's wounds in order to claim otherwise.

I don't need to pinpoint the location of the shooter who hit Kennedy in the throat to be able to prove that the shot was fired from in front of the limousine.
The Warren Commission Report had to raise the wound to Kennedy's back by more than five inches in order to have a bullet entering the back of his neck going on to exit the front of his throat and passing through cervical vertebrae on the way, for which it could find no precedent.

The same goes for the Warren Commission's neurological explanation for Kennedy's being thrown backwards by a shot from behind: they could provide no reference to any precedent, and there is abundant evidence of an exit wound in the back of the head, which could not have been caused by a shot from behind.

I stand by my statement that at least six shots were fired.
Once you reject the raising of the back wound by five inches, the SBT implodes, which means two additional shots.
The double shot heard at the end, supported by evidence from the Zapruder film and evidence of fragments from two bullets in Kennedy's brain, points to two head shots.
That makes a total of six.


The Warren Commission's finding of three shots was pre-determined to match the three cartridge cases found.
Originally, they had no SBT, because it was not necessary.

Humes' finding that the shot that hit Kennedy in the back had exited the front of his throat was received with incredulity by two FBI agents present because it was evidently impossible.

It was necessitated by the shot that had hit Connally.

It was only when they discovered proof of an additional shot missing the vehicle that the lawyers for the Warren Commission 'realised' that it was obvious that a single bullet had gone through two people and that people like me are too stupid to see what was so obvious that no-one would otherwise even have considered such a possibility.

Hi PI,

While my post was an invitation to discuss matters that aren't discussed much as far as I know, I see that you, instead, only repeat points that have all been discussed before. I still would have liked to, especially, hear your view on the trajectory of a seperate bullet hitting Connally, based on the Zapruder film evidence combined with Connally’s testimony that he thought he was hit in frames 231 and 234. So, I'll leave it here for now, as I don't want to waste anybody's time, especially not my own. Of course, it’s fine that you or anybody else has his own view, but just repeating it while rejecting all evidence that that could or would point away from a conspiracy, doesn’t make it any more convincing - if that’s what one’s aiming at at all, of course. Thanks for the chat, anyway!

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

That is farfetched.

You accept eyewitnesses' testimony when their description does not match Oswald's and now you will not accept eyewitness testimony that a certain person was not Oswald.

Either way, Oswald is damned and that is not fair.

Two of the three people I quoted identified the man they saw as Oswald.

You refuse to acknowledge the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses where the description matches Oswald, even when they picked him out of a lineup. Nobody identified Oswald by his shirt.

And you continue to doge the question.

There are two possibilities about the Oswald in Mexico.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.

2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were even magically able to get Oswald to tell his wife that he had been in Mexico. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.

Yet you think Option 1 is farfetched.

The conspirators could have had expectations that they would be able to place Oswald in such a location as to be able to frame him for the assassination, and that is less farfetched than Oswald going to Mexico to prepare an escape route to Cuba when he had no idea that he would be working in a building on the President's motorcade route.

Oswald wasn't going to Mexico to plan an escape route.

It is farfetched that Oswald would be making any decision based on events that he could not predict - his getting a job at the Book Depository and the motorcade route passing the Book Depository. It is just as farfetched for the Conspiracy to make decisions based events that they could not predict.

JFK and his staffers choose to go to Texas. JFK's staffers and Connally's staffers worked out which cities and the itineraries for each city. Connally testified that LBJ was not part of this decision making process and annoyed at being out of the loop. Connally testified that he was against the motorcade, but JFK insisted. The motorcade route was decided by the Dallas Police and the Secret Service only a few days before JFK's trip to Dallas. And at the last minute the weather cleared up and JFK told the Secret Service not to put the top on the limo.

A Conspiracy had no way of knowing Oswald would be turned down for half-a-dozen jobs before asking for a job at the Book Depository. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing Oswald would get the job at the Book Depository. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing the Book Depository would be on JFK's motorcade route. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't be fired before November 22. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't skip going to work that day. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't have an alibi.

[Fiver]

The test I am referring to was for powder residue on his cheek and the result was negative.

You originally said "Oswald's hands were tested and it was shown that he had not fired a rifle recently."

A paraffin test was done on Oswald's cheek. No powder residue was found on his cheek. The FBI did tests with other men firing Oswald's Carcano, then did paraffin tests on their checks. No powder residue was found on any of the men's cheeks.

This is hardly surprising - nobody puts their cheek near the rifle muzzle when they are shooting it. That's literally the opposite end of the gun from where your face is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[/B]


A Conspiracy had no way of knowing Oswald would be turned down for half-a-dozen jobs before asking for a job at the Book Depository. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing Oswald would get the job at the Book Depository. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing the Book Depository would be on JFK's motorcade route. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't be fired before November 22. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't skip going to work that day. A Conspiracy had no way of guaranteeing that Oswald wouldn't have an alibi.

Would you not agree with me that Oswald had no way of knowing that there would be no-one else on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination nor immediately after it, when he is alleged to have traversed it while carrying a rifle?

According to Williams' testimony, he may have still been eating lunch on the sixth floor as late as 12.15 p.m. on the day of the assassination.

Do you think Oswald was already in the sniper's nest by the time Williams started to eat his lunch?

Do you think Oswald would then have fired shots even if Williams had stayed on the sixth floor and watched the motorcade from there?

How would Oswald have known that Williams was no longer on the sixth floor and that it was safe to shoot?

How would he know he could cross the sixth floor to the top of the stairs while carrying a rifle and that Williams would not be able to see him?

If Oswald was not already in the sniper's nest, how would he know when Williams would finish his lunch and that he could then go up to the sixth floor without anyone already up there noticing him?

[cobalt]

A conspiracy by definition cannot be perfect since it is a perversion of reality. Nor does it need to be anything remotely like perfect in order to be presented to the public as fact. The recent conspiracy that blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is an example of this, complete with 'magic bullet' elements of unidentified scuba divers hiring a boat laden with explosives so heavy the boat would have sunk. No doubt NATO scientists will soon appear to tell us that this apparent impossibility is in fact what actually happened and that Russians along with German 'marxists' blew up their own pipeline. Anyone disputing this will be called a conspiracy theorist.

Any evidence derived from 'line ups' in this case is contaminated, as Brennan himself conceded. Marina Oswald's evidence is unreliable as the WC acknowledged and would, I think, have been inadmissible in court. It's worthless in terms of hard evidence.

The JFK Texas trip was announced in June 1963 and the Dallas stop off by 25th September, just before Oswald allegedly took his trip to Mexico City in search of a visa that was never likely to be issued. Oswald was the patsy of choice although that does not discount others being 'sheep-dipped' as back up. The TSBD was not essential to any conspiracy: the killing could have happened at the Trade Mart or indeed anywhere on the motorcade route where Oswald and his rifle could be linked to the shooting. Given Oswald's transient work record this could have been done as easily as finding him the job at the TSBD.
Oswald had never missed a day's work at the TSBD and manual workers never missed a Friday in the days when they were handed a weekly pay packet at the end of the day. As it turned out Oswald did have an alibi but had he been photographed waving to the presidential car he would still have been 'patsied' as part of the conspiracy in respect of bringing into work one of the weapons. I say 'one of the weapons' because the conspiracy had no inkling that the Lone Gunman theory would emerge after the fact. The Mexico City farrago was about establishing a pro-Cuban conspiracy, not a LG theory.

[Fiver]

Hardly!

Oswald did not even own a white jacket - and his shirt could not have been mistaken for a jacket as both a shirt and jacket were mentioned.

Moreover, Oswald did not have black hair.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

And we've seen the color picture of Oswald's jacket. The one found in the parking lot. The one identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband.

It certainly is light enough in color for someone to perceive it as being white.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.

This is the same Oswald who you have claimed had hair that was so light in colour that it could have been described by witnesses in Mexico as blond.

No, I have stated that the hair color - as remembered by the witness - was blond. I have noted that this is a discrepancy from Oswald's actual appearance. I have also noted that witnesses identified the man they saw as Oswald based on a seeing his photo.

These contradictions lead to two possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.

2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were even magically able to get Oswald to tell his wife that he had been in Mexico. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.

Well, that really is an assumption - is it not?

It's a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

Tippet got out of his car, approached the man with his hand on the butt of his gun, and had drawn the gun before he was killed. That shows that Tippet thought the man was potential danger, which only makes sense if he thought the man might be JFK's murderer.

Even in 1963, police officers didn't draw their guns on white men unless they thought the man might be a threat.

We know that Tippit stopped a car about a quarter of an hour before he was shot and looked at the space between the back seat and front seat of it.

Does that make sense only if he was looking for the assassin of President Kennedy?

Where is the evidence of Tippet stopping a car about 15 minutes before he was murdered?

[Fiver]

The JFK Texas trip was announced in June 1963 and the Dallas stop off by 25th September, just before Oswald allegedly took his trip to Mexico City in search of a visa that was never likely to be issued.

Oswald got his Mexican tourist card on September 17.

JFK had been considering a Texas trip since June, but the first public announcement came on September 26 in an exclusive to the Dallas morning news.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In answer to Fiver's # 2377:

I think you are being so flexible in your treatment of eyewitness evidence that almost whomever a witness describes can be Oswald.

A grey jacket which is unproven to have been worn by Oswald - who had been seen putting on a dark jacket a few minutes earlier - could look white to a witness.

Oswald's hair can look black or blond, depending on the witness.

'Tippet thought the man was potential danger, which only makes sense if he thought the man might be JFK's murderer.'

JFK's murderer was not the only dangerous man in Dallas and there was no reason to suspect him of wandering the streets in Oak Cliff.

No other policeman had been directed to that area.

James A. Andrews claimed his car was stopped by Tippit shortly after 1 p.m. and that Tippit looked in the back of his car.

[Fiver]

A grey jacket which is unproven to have been worn by Oswald - who had been seen putting on a dark jacket a few minutes earlier - could look white to a witness.

Marina Oswald identified the jacket as belonging to her husband. A color picture of it was posted earlier in the thread. It's certainly light enough for someone to perceive it as white.

Oswald's hair can look black or blond, depending on the witness.

Oswald's hair did look black or blond, depending on the witness.

Officer Baker, who saw Oswald on the 2nd floor of the Depository, described Oswald's hair as dark.

Buell Frazier, who took Oswald to work that day, described Oswald's hair as blond.

And you're still dodging the question.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.

'Tippet thought the man was potential danger, which only makes sense if he thought the man might be JFK's murderer.'

JFK's murderer was not the only dangerous man in Dallas and there was no reason to suspect him of wandering the streets in Oak Cliff.

Tippet saw a man who matched the dispatcher's description of JFK's killer. Tippet stopped the man. Tippet got out of his car and attempted to draw his weapon on the man.

Which means Tippet clearly saw the man as dangerous. Why would Tippet think the man was dangerous unless Tippet suspected the man had killed might be JFK's killer.

No other policeman had been directed to that area.

After the JFK killing, all squads in the downtown area were directed to Houston and Elm. Tippet was directed to remain in Oak Cliff.

After the Tippet killing, several patrol cars were directed to the area.

James A. Andrews claimed his car was stopped by Tippit shortly after 1 p.m. and that Tippit looked in the back of his car.

More correctly, in 1997 Bill Drenas claimed that Bill Putle claimed that Greg Lowrey claimed that James A Andrews had claimed that his car was stopped by Tippet shortly after 1 PM.

So it might have happened, but we don't know that Tippet stopped Andrews at 1:03. Even if he did, we don't know how accurate Andrews memory was, let alone how accurately his statements passed form Andrews to Lowrey to Pulte to Drenas.

[Fiver]

The frangible bullets, particularly the mercury projectiles do in fact explode creating a large exit wound. David Mantik stated that there was amorphous debris shown in the X-rays that looked more like liquid than metal. These projectiles do not exit in large pieces like a FMJ. They fragment into many tiny pieces.

Mercury bullets appear in works of fiction. The bullets and the weapon would have to be kept at almost -40 degrees to keep the bullet from melting. and mercury is not explosive.

Mercury could be put in the tip of a bullet but that won't make the bullet casing magically disappear.

Mercury fulminate is explosive, but if you put that in a bullet, odd are it will blow up inside the gun, since it's highly sensitive to shock.

Exploding bullets do exist. They are notoriously unreliable. When Hinckley tried to assassinate Reagan he fired 6 explosive bullets, only one of which exploded.

And Mythbusters showed that frangible bullets that leave no trace are mythical.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Marina Oswald identified the jacket as belonging to her husband.

Marina Oswald was helpful to the authorities but is convinced that Oswald was innocent.



color picture of it was posted earlier in the thread. It's certainly light enough for someone to perceive it as white.


It certainly is not!

You can see here a woman wearing a white garment while holding the jacket in question and it appears to be grey, not white:

JFK Assassination Warren Commission Exhibit - CE 162 gray zipper jacket worn by Oswald

(on YouTube)



Oswald's hair did look black or blond, depending on the witness.

Officer Baker, who saw Oswald on the 2nd floor of the Depository, described Oswald's hair as dark.

Buell Frazier, who took Oswald to work that day, described Oswald's hair as blond.


Can you name any witnesses to the Tippit shooting who described the murderer's hair as blond?



And you're still dodging the question.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.


What would you be saying if their descriptions were of a man in his mid-twenties, weighing about 135 lbs, with light brown hair?

Would you not be saying that the killer must have been Oswald?



Tippet saw a man who matched the dispatcher's description of JFK's killer. Tippet stopped the man. Tippet got out of his car and attempted to draw his weapon on the man.

Which means Tippet clearly saw the man as dangerous. Why would Tippet think the man was dangerous unless Tippet suspected the man had killed might be JFK's killer.


Why would Tippit expect to find JFK's assassin in Oak Cliff?

Why would he alone have been asked to stay in Oak Cliff?



After the JFK killing, all squads in the downtown area were directed to Houston and Elm. Tippet was directed to remain in Oak Cliff.

After the Tippet killing, several patrol cars were directed to the area.


Aren't you dodging the question now?



More correctly, in 1997 Bill Drenas claimed that Bill Putle claimed that Greg Lowrey claimed that James A Andrews had claimed that his car was stopped by Tippet shortly after 1 PM.

So it might have happened, but we don't know that Tippet stopped Andrews at 1:03. Even if he did, we don't know how accurate Andrews memory was, let alone how accurately his statements passed form Andrews to Lowrey to Pulte to Drenas.


If you look at all the evidence of Tippit's movements and actions that day, the account given by Andrews is plausible.

Tippit was obviously looking for something or someone.

[Fiver]

Why would Tippit expect to find JFK's assassin in Oak Cliff?

Nobody has claimed that Tippet expected to find JFK's killer. But when he saw a man walking down the street that matched the description of JFK's killer, it was Tippet's job to stop and question the man. And when Tippet tried to do that, he was murdered.

Why would he alone have been asked to stay in Oak Cliff?

He wasn't.

At 12;45 the dispatcher, a personal friend and former partner of Tippet's ordered "87, 78, move into central Oak Cliff area." 78 was Tippet's call sign. 87 was the call sign of RC Nelson, who ignored orders and went to Houston and Elm.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[/B]

Nobody has claimed that Tippet expected to find JFK's killer. But when he saw a man walking down the street that matched the description of JFK's killer, it was Tippet's job to stop and question the man. And when Tippet tried to do that, he was murdered.



He wasn't.

At 12;45 the dispatcher, a personal friend and former partner of Tippet's ordered "87, 78, move into central Oak Cliff area." 78 was Tippet's call sign. 87 was the call sign of RC Nelson, who ignored orders and went to Houston and Elm.

the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45 p.m... described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds, about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties ... [at about 1.36 or 1.37 p.m.] the police radio reported that "an eyeball witness" described the suspect in the Tippit shooting as "a white male, 27, 5'11", 165 pounds, black wavy hair."

(Warren Commission Report, Chapter 4, page 144)


According to his enlistment record, Oswald was 5 ft 8 ins tall, and according to his arrest record in August 1963, he was just under 5 ft 9 ins.

He was 24, not in his early thirties.

He weighed about 135 lbs, not 165 lbs.

When I cited a description given by a witness to the Tippit shooting which included black wavy hair, you corrected me and insisted that it did not include the word wavy.

As you can see, the Warren Commission did include it.

Oswald did not fit that description either: he was not 5 ft 11 ins tall,, did not weigh 165 lbs and did not have black wavy hair.

[cobalt]

‘According to Williams' testimony, he may have still been eating lunch on the sixth floor as late as 12.15 p.m. on the day of the assassination.’

If you read his testimony in conjunction with that of Norman and Jarman it must have been later than that. We know that the latter two came in the back door at 12.23 and made their way to the 5^th floor, where they were heard by Williams. According to Williams that is why he stopped off at the 5^th floor to meet up with them. Remember he said things were too quiet on the 6^th floor - and this must have been close to 12.25.

In his testimony, Norman said he could not remember if Williams was already there when he and Jarman arrived, but Williams seems to be clear that he was not.

There was clearly some vague arrangement between the three men to watch the parade together and Williams seems to have assumed this would be on the 6^th floor, the place where he had been working and where he spoken to Norman before noon. Norman was asked an interesting question by the WC as to why he went to the 5^th floor and not say the 4^th or 6^th. He was not very clear about this but suggested that most of his work was done on the 5^th floor and that he was familiar with it.