JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

In general CTs consider that the witness evidence is weak (the Oswald ID parades are an example of this,) susceptible to coercion (the black employees of the TSBD, Marina) or implausible (Brewer, Paine.)

Whenever anyone says anything negative about Oswald, you accuse them of denigrating his character. Yet you have no problem with accusing dozens of people of lying as part of a murder conspiracy.

* The Oswald ID parades could have been better, like many parts of the case.
* There is no evidence that Marina or anyone else was coerced.
* One black employee put Oswald on the sixth floor a half hour before the shooting. He put Oswald by the elevators, not the snipers nest, and didn't mention anything suspicious about Oswald. If that's coerced testimony, then the Conspiracy are a bunch of idiots.
* Nothing about Paine's testimony is implausible.
* Nothing about Brewer's testimony is implausible. And lots of people saw someone in the snipers nest and/or the rifle being fired.

[Fiver]

Johnson : Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

This is clear proof that of there was a Conspiracy, LBJ was not part of it.

A man, John Connally, being famous for one thing in his life, that which he took a bullet in the back on the day of the most famous assassination of our life time. Who went to his grave believing and knowing the truth of his above statement ,having his integrity and certainty questioned by a group of men who would rather believe a concocted bullshit story of the magic bullet, in order to make the lone gunman 3 shot balony story fit that narrative.

Even President Johnson didnt belive it, nor did Russell, a member of Conspiracy Commission .

As is clear from your quote, both Russell and LBJ believed Oswald hit with all three bullets. So did Connally.

22 November 1963 :
A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination . The best book ever written on the Assassination.

If your source claims that LBJ or Russell or Connally thought there were four shots and a second gunman, then your source is lying.

They all had the same view Dr Dolce.

"I feel that the sequence of the bullets is as follows:

1- The first bullet went through JFK's neck and this is the so-called pristine bullet

2- The second bullet went through Governor Connaley's [sic] chest and wrist and the film clearly demonstrates that Connaley's wrist was against his chest wall. I feel that this is the bullet that is missing

3- The third bullet struck JFK in the head and one fragment of this bullet struck Connaley in the left thigh and also struck the windshield of the car

I feel that Oswald was the sole assassin who fired the three shots." - Dr Joseph Dolce.

[cobalt]

Any attempt to focus on the character of Oswald is a cack-handed attempt to divert attention from the obvious political element to the crime. Draping that in the false cloak of being protective of womanhood will not change that. It's as insincere as the anti-Kennedy 'political' commentators who write books about JFK's philandering.

To claim the ID parades could have been handled better is a massive understatement. They were a pig circus as Oswald (denied counsel) complained about at the time. From memory, I think some witnesses picked Oswald out after his photo had been plastered across national TV.

Anyone with a shred of human empathy would recognise how vulnerable Marina Oswald was after the assassination, leaving her susceptible to manipulation by the FBI. Due to death threats she was under FBI protection up until she testified before the Warren Commission. She was a young mother of two pre-school children. She had a poor command of the English language. She had no visible means of income. The black employees of the TSBD were in a much better place than Marina but uncomfortably close to the 6th floor from where we assume shots were fired. Unsurprisingly they sought to put as much distance as they could between Oswald and themselves on the day lest they be suspected as fellow conspirators. Any additions they made to their original statements were helpful to the FBI case.

Ruth Paine's garage become something of an Aladdin's Cave for the FBI with its rifle blanket, back yard photos, curtain rods and a Minex Camera for good measure. She must have had problems parking her station wagon in there. Johnny Brewer's John Wayne tribute act inside the Texas Theatre was surely worthy of a Best Supporting Actor award.

Despite the marriage guidance expertise offered on this site, Marina Oswald never disowned her husband. She asked to say her farewell in the mortuary (her broken English comment is quite poignant) and attended his funeral. She retained his name until she remarried as I think their daughters did. Whilst never retracting her WC testimony, Marina has over the years cast doubt on the notion that her husband was the killer of JFK. This is quite a consistent feature of people who actually knew Lee Harvey Oswald such as his army colleagues, fellow workers in Minsk, his mother, Buell Frazier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any attempt to focus on the character of Oswald is a cack-handed attempt to divert attention from the obvious political element to the crime. So in a crime case the accused’s character is an irrelevance? So when the police tend to take heed of this kind of thing they are doing it purely as a distraction. I didn’t realise that.
Draping that in the false cloak of being protective of womanhood will not change that. I can’t see where I, or anyone else, has suggested that we should conclude in favour of Oswald’s guilt on the grounds that he was a wife-beater.
It's as insincere as the anti-Kennedy 'political' commentators who write books about JFK's philandering. So you dislike mention of Oswald’s known violence and you think that books that mention Kennedy’s philandering are ‘anti-Kennedy. I thought that they mentioned his philandering because on one hand he liked to portray himself as a happy family man whilst at the same time jumping on anything in a skirt to such a level that he had aides bringing women into the White House for him whilst Jackie was looking after the kids. Kennedy was an Olympic standard philanderer. Oswald was a wide beater and a traitor. Both are facts. Neither should be hidden.


To claim the ID parades could have been handled better is a massive understatement. They were a pig circus as Oswald (denied counsel) complained about at the time. From memory, I think some witnesses picked Oswald out after his photo had been plastered across national TV. I’ve just laid out in detail, using evidence, Oswald’s actions on the Thursday and the Friday which portray a man taking a rifle into work and not expecting to return home. If you, or anyone else, can’t can see or understand this then there’s nothing that reason can do to change that.


Anyone with a shred of human empathy would recognise how vulnerable Marina Oswald was after the assassination, leaving her susceptible to manipulation by the FBI. So I have no empathy now. Further digression from the facts to avoid responding to points made. ‘Susceptible to…’ is a massive wide open gap leaving as many ‘get out’ clauses that you need to avoid the fact that she believed him guilty. Was his brother ‘vulnerable?’ Were those in the Russian emigré community? I’m not interested excuses created to avoid facing facts.
Due to death threats she was under FBI protection up until she testified before the Warren Commission. She was a young mother of two pre-school children. She had a poor command of the English language. She had no visible means of income. The black employees of the TSBD were in a much better place than Marina but uncomfortably close to the 6th floor from where we assume shots were fired. Witnesses bullied, photos faked, documents forged, fingerprints planted. Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard this kind of childishness for years.
Unsurprisingly they sought to put as much distance as they could between Oswald and themselves on the day lest they be suspected as fellow conspirators. Any additions they made to their original statements were helpful to the FBI case. Ditto above


Ruth Paine's garage become something of an Aladdin's Cave for the FBI with its rifle blanket, back yard photos, curtain rods and a Minex Camera for good measure. She must have had problems parking her station wagon in there. Johnny Brewer's John Wayne tribute act inside the Texas Theatre was surely worthy of a Best Supporting Actor award. This surely isn’t a serious point. It’s stated that there was a rifle in that garage, not a Sherman Tank. Unless you are suggesting that her garage was the size of a dachshund’s kennel I fail to see how hiding a rifle was somehow ‘challenging.’


Despite the marriage guidance expertise offered on this site, Marina Oswald never disowned her husband. She asked to say her farewell in the mortuary (her broken English comment is quite poignant) and attended his funeral. She retained his name until she remarried as I think their daughters did. Whilst never retracting her WC testimony, Marina has over the years cast doubt on the notion that her husband was the killer of JFK. Because, like many, she spoke to Mark Lane. It’s no coincidence how almost every witness that charlatan spoke to suddenly starts ‘remembering’ stuff.’
This is quite a consistent feature of people who actually knew Lee Harvey Oswald such as his army colleagues, fellow workers in Minsk, his mother, Buell Frazier.

The last time that this thread broke down was due the the levels of frustration at those on the CT side who simply will not respond directly to questions and points. They simply plough on with points of their own. I’ve know the case where I’ve answered 30-40 questions before just one of mine got responded to. And here we are again. This avoidance tactic is wearying but at least it’s instructive in that it shows that there are no answers. I did say that I didn’t want to go over the endless details of the case again but I have joined the discussion on some points..and I’ve ensured that I’ve done it politely. But as we can see I’ve now been accused of using a ‘false cloak of protectiveness to womanhood’ (nice) I’ve been accused of being ‘insincere.’ And whether I have a ‘shred of human empathy’ has been called into question.

A man changes his habits significantly. Acts strangely. Takes a rifle into work. It’s found on the floor he was working on. With his prints on. It was the gun that fired at the President.


But guess what? He’s innocent (well obviously duh!) He’s the victim of a multi-agency conspiracy created and run by a collection of the stupidest men that could be collected into one room at one time. These are the kind of geniuses that can control anything but you wouldn’t let them plan your Granny’s birthday party because they have all of the planning skills of a dozen baboons.

I’ll leave you to it because I can see where this is heading again. Fiver and the rest who are debating with reason…give up chaps…you are banging your heads against a brick wall. This is a religious faith for some. What a state of affairs.

[cobalt]

The reason the thread broke down was due to your emotional breakdown when, for the umpteenth time, you were unable to convince others of the merits of Earl Warren and Bugliosi.

I read your account this morning of Oswald's departure from his usual routine and found it pretty persuasive. I said yesterday that Oswald appeared to be up to something in the days leading up to the assassination and your account was a fair enough assessment. But you can hardly complain when the gaping holes in the WC are exposed, as they have been for the best part of 60 years. There was no open court to test the evidence that is listed as 'proved' so the best that any of us can do is work with what is available. Sticking to the topic is also helpful, so if I criticise the Dallas ID line-up I can't see the relevance of you detailing quotidian actions by Oswald on his way to the TSBD. If I reach a different conclusion to yourself that may be less a matter of lack of reasoning on my part but of your own limitations in presenting a credible case. I will, through gritted teeth, accept the same judgment in return.

Failure to confront the political element in the killing of the POTUS is probably the major weakness in the WC case. There were hundreds of people in Dallas in November 1963 who had expressed hatred of JFK- not opposition- sheer hatred of JFK. They considered him a traitor to the USA and thus logically, his execution would not be a crime but an act of patriotism. Posters, and I think newspaper adverts, had been produced emphasising this very attitude. Yet astonishingly the WC failed to make any link between this visceral, local hatred and the assassination of Kennedy. It's like trying to investigate the causes of the Holocaust whilst ignoring Hitler's tedious tome, Mein Kampf.

Even more bizarrely they fixed- exclusively from around 2pm on the day of the murder- on a man who had never voiced any criticism of the President whatsoever. JFK was no friend of Cuba as Oswald claimed to be - the illegal assassination of Castro remained on the JFK agenda - but compared to McCarthyites Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater he was a shining light. JFK had shown during the Cuban missile crisis a willingness to engage on something higher than Pax Americana so a self-styled Marxist like Oswald had no reason to kill him since the alternative was a damn sight worse. The WC avoided this contradiction by offering no motive- political or otherwise- for the crime. This has opened the door to marriage guidance counsellors, psychobabblers and FBI profilers over the years.

I claimed a few days ago that Oswald was impersonated at least three times prior to the assassination and was told I was wrong. When I explained I was working, albeit on memory, from at least two occasions on FBI reports I heard no more. The political element to the assassination is a screaming siren call and the WC achieved little by stuffing wax in its ears.

A mea culpa. I claimed today that LHO was 'denied counsel.' This is not correct. He was offered legal assistance from the Dallas Bar but (probably quite wisely in that redneck arena) declined to accept it, preferring to seek other alternatives. So he was not railroaded by the Dallas PD as I implied. However the failure to record his answers when questioned cannot be seen as anything other than impairment of justice.

[Lewis C]

Any attempt to focus on the character of Oswald is a cack-handed attempt to divert attention from the obvious political element to the crime.

I don't know what commenting on Oswald's character has to do with whether or not one also addresses the question of whether there's a political element to the crime. Oswald was a Marxist who defected to the USSR. He tried to kill an active right winger. He spoke in defense of Marxism on TV. In New Orleans, he passed out pamphlets purporting to be from the Fair Play for Cuba committee. Yes, there's a political element, and I haven't seen anyone deny that there is. I don't know how the case against Oswald is thought to be weakened by Oswald's politics. If anything, politics help to explain a possible motive for Oswald.

[cobalt]

Yes, there's a political element, and I haven't seen anyone deny that there is.

Try the Warren Commission.

Oswald's Marxism was fairly described, by a WC advocate, as 'broad but not deep.' The Soviets thought it a damn sight less than that. His 'defection' occurred at the same time as other dubious defections by US military personnel, none of whom lasted long in the USSR. I don't know if Oswald was part of that CIA programme or whether he just joined in on his own behest but whether he was a cunning double agent or a naïve adventurer, the Soviets exiled him to Minsk and were relieved to get him off their hands when he returned to the USA.

The attack on General Walker is highly disputed and relies heavily on the testimony of Marina Oswald and a US/Russian whose name I can barely recall but had CIA fingerprints all over. He committed suicide when called to testify before the Church Committee around 1978. This man claimed Oswald spoke impeccable Russian: most others found his Russian demotic.

Oswald's political affiliation in New Orleans is a matter of judgment since he was shouting for both Castro and anti-Castro sides, although he appeared on TV for the former. So if you think his politics provide some motivation for the assassination of JFK, it will be necessary to decide which side Oswald was shooting for.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason the thread broke down was due to your emotional breakdown when, for the umpteenth time, you were unable to convince others of the merits of Earl Warren and Bugliosi.

The thread broke down due to comments made in anger and irritation. You, and others on there, only saw mine as yours and theirs apparently didn’t count. If been absolutely polite on this thread Cobalt. The insulting comments have come from you

I read your account this morning of Oswald's departure from his usual routine and found it pretty persuasive. I said yesterday that Oswald appeared to be up to something in the days leading up to the assassination and your account was a fair enough assessment. But you can hardly complain when the gaping holes in the WC are exposed, as they have been for the best part of 60 years. Human error turned and the expected shortcomings of anything like this turned into conspiracy. Not to mention the CIA and FBI’s usual secretiveness.
There was no open court to test the evidence that is listed as 'proved' so the best that any of us can do is work with what is available. Sticking to the topic is also helpful, so if I criticise the Dallas ID line-up I can't see the relevance of you detailing quotidian actions by Oswald on his way to the TSBD. If I reach a different conclusion to yourself that may be less a matter of lack of reasoning on my part but of your own limitations in presenting a credible case. Another insult which I haven’t reciprocated I will, through gritted teeth, accept the same judgment in return.

Failure to confront the political element in the killing of the POTUS is probably the major weakness in the WC case. Because we don’t know of any. He was killed by Oswald for reasons that we can’t be certain about. But he categorically was killed by Oswald and Tippit. There were hundreds of people in Dallas in November 1963 who had expressed hatred of JFK- not opposition- sheer hatred of JFK. They considered him a traitor to the USA and thus logically, his execution would not be a crime but an act of patriotism. Posters, and I think newspaper adverts, had been produced emphasising this very attitude. Yet astonishingly the WC failed to make any link between this visceral, local hatred and the assassination of Kennedy. It's like trying to investigate the causes of the Holocaust whilst ignoring Hitler's tedious tome, Mein Kampf. Red herring, you persist in rating ‘potential motive’ over evidence. We don’t need a motive. The evidence gives us the culprit. If he’d been tried he’d have rightly been found guilty.


Even more bizarrely they fixed- exclusively from around 2pm on the day of the murder- on a man who had never voiced any criticism of the President whatsoever. it doesn’t matter, the EVIDENCE screamed GUILTY. It was an open and shut case.
JFK was no friend of Cuba as Oswald claimed to be - the illegal assassination of Castro remained on the JFK agenda - but compared to McCarthyites Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater he was a shining light. JFK had shown during the Cuban missile crisis a willingness to engage on something higher than Pax Americana so a self-styled Marxist like Oswald had no reason to kill him since the alternative was a damn sight worse. The WC avoided this contradiction by offering no motive- political or otherwise- for the crime. This has opened the door to marriage guidance counsellors, psychobabblers and FBI profilers over the years. And this political waffle has led CT’s to look for plots that weren’t there. Motive isn’t important if you have evidence to show guilt. Oswald was guilty. It is impossible for him to have been innocent. It cannot have happened that he didn’t shoot Kennedy. Unless people accept that fact then they are living in Alex Jones Land


I claimed a few days ago that Oswald was impersonated at least three times prior to the assassination and was told I was wrong. When I explained I was working, albeit on memory, from at least two occasions on FBI reports I heard no more. The political element to the assassination is a screaming siren call and the WC achieved little by stuffing wax in its ears. And I, for my sins, said the screamingly obvious. No one impersonates someone if they look nothing like them. It was an error. An unimportant side issue. The EVIDENCE tells us that Oswald shot Kennedy. We need nothing more


A mea culpa. I claimed today that LHO was 'denied counsel.' This is not correct. He was offered legal assistance from the Dallas Bar but (probably quite wisely in that redneck arena) declined to accept it, preferring to seek other alternatives. So he was not railroaded by the Dallas PD as I implied. However the failure to record his answers when questioned cannot be seen as anything other than impairment of justice. So even now that you find that he was offered counsel you do the CT shuffle and make it out that the offer was bad for Oswald. Ok.

This is simple case made insanely complicated by conspiracy theorists. If not for them, and if this case had gone before a jury, they would have found him guilty in 10 minutes. And they would have been absolutely correct to do so. Oswald’s guilt couldn’t be more obvious but we just get wave after wave after wave of obfuscation about the CIA and Cuba and the Mob and blah, blah, blah. On it’s gone, tediously for 60 years in the vain hope that people will eventually see past the spy thriller stuff and to look at the guy with the ‘I killed Kennedy’ t-short on. The guy that makes OJ Simpson look innocent. Lee Harvey Oswald was a wretched, wife-beating, murdering, lowlife traitor. Those that knew him said that he felt that life had never given him the rewards that his ‘talent’ deserved. It’s the kind of ego thing that fuels many a killer. And Oswald was a killer. He escaped justice but got what he deserved in the end.