JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Lewis C]

Firing at a steep downward angle is much less accurate. Firing at an approaching vehicle requires leading the target more, which is less accurate. Firing while JFK was approaching would make the shooter easier to spot and make it harder to escape.

Firing from the 6th floor straight down when the limo was turning would require leaning out the window in a poorly braced or unbraced position, which is very inaccurate and leaves the shooter extremely exposed to both identification and return fire.

But you don't believe Oswald was the shooter, so lets turn your question back at you.

If shooting at JFK as he was approaching the Book Depository was a good idea, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

If shooting at JFK while the limo was turning from Houston into Elm, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

Yes, the only way that I can see in which the question of why Oswald shot when he did is relevant is if your position is that there were no shots fired from the TSBD, and I haven't noticed anyone in this forum taking that position. I think that it makes perfect sense why Oswald shot when he did, but if you think that it doesn't make sense, then it equally doesn't make sense regardless of whether it was Oswald acting alone, or Oswald as part of a conspiracy, or some other shooter taking the shots from the TSBD.

[scottnapa]

The Texas Rules of Evidence do not support your opinion.
"

TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE

effective March 1, 2013
The 1963 law matters.
Laws change that document does not apply GO FISH

The body was removed before the autopsy therefore the chain of evidence is broken and the autopsy in Maryland could NOT be used in a Texas trial attempting to convict Lee Oswald. They could easily charge him for Tippet. BUT not Kennedy.
That's why the WC made the recommendation to change the law so that it is a federal crime.
Interesting that you now disagree with Gerald Ford and the WC. you continue to surprise me in unfortunate ways.

the time of the crime, killing a president was not a violation of federal law. Therefore, if

Lee Harvey Oswald had not been killed, he would have stood trial in Dallas County under

the Texas statute of murder.

You are the ONLY person that doesn't understand this.

[FISHY1118]

This is what has been said every previous time that more documents have been released or another review of the case occurs. A competent Conspiracy wouldn't have documented a murder Conspiracy the first place and if they were that stupid, they've had over 60 years to erase the evidence.

Its the warren commission conspiracy , you have it it all wrong .

Remember those file were never released due to" national security" risk .

What Risk did LHO pose pray tell ???? , especially when he was murdered 60 years ago. ?????????

[FISHY1118]

Firing at a steep downward angle is much less accurate. Firing at an approaching vehicle requires leading the target more, which is less accurate. Firing while JFK was approaching would make the shooter easier to spot and make it harder to escape.

Firing from the 6th floor straight down when the limo was turning would require leaning out the window in a poorly braced or unbraced position, which is very inaccurate and leaves the shooter extremely exposed to both identification and return fire.

But you don't believe Oswald was the shooter, so lets turn your question back at you.

If shooting at JFK as he was approaching the Book Depository was a good idea, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

If shooting at JFK while the limo was turning from Houston into Elm, why didn't the Conspiracy shooter do it?

All those excuses you mentioned are in a one word ... HorseS#$%.

Seriously, you want people to belive that nonsense, ?



The obvious answer to your question is simply , multiple gunman with multiple shots from a number of positions .

Oswald wasn't part of any Conspiracy remember, he acted alone according to you , so again ill ask why didn't he make all 3 shots on Houston st?

Those things you mentioned are plain silly for obvious reasons, in that they don't pose any problems whatsoever.

[Fiver]

There were 5 assassinations in the Moro kidnapping and 4 assassinations in the Schleyer kidnapping. Both these attacks resembled the very de Gaulle assassination that we were told on this site only idiots would use as a template. The BR and the RAF showed that notion was utter nonsense.

Neither of your examples is:
* An assassination.
* A crossfire assassination.
* An attack while the target's vehicle was still moving.
* An attempt to portray a crossfire attack as the actions of a lone assassin.

If they had planned to assassinate Moro or Schleyer, their plan was significantly better than the Conspiracy claimed for the JFK assassination.

* The kidnappers immobilized the target vehicles, giving them much better accuracy than the alleged Conspiracy.
* The kidnappers did not attack when the target was visible to over 100 people, many actively taking still or motion pictures of the event.
* The kidnappers attacked when there was only a single support vehicle, which could be immobilized, not numerous police cars and motorcycles.
* The kidnappers attacked when there were less than half-a-dozen armed men trying to protect the target, not dozens.
* The kidnappers were not part of multiple rival organizations.
* The kidnappers kept the group small.
* No kidnappers had to escape on foot carrying a rifle.
* The kidnappers didn't try to make a multiple gunman attack look like the work if a lone man.

Yet we're expected t believe that a Conspiracy with vastly more resources would come up with a vastly inferior plan and succeed.

[Doctored Whatsit]

this is a post from week ago but I have something for you to look at.
In this NYT op ed from 1975 by a Warren Commission lawyer.
Items of note: John Ely clearly states they had no independent investigation apparatus, they were lawyers. Writing in 1975 Ely is aware of the distrust in government after the Nixon impeachment. As well as the CIA issues with Watergate break-in defendants, and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état as an example of overthrowing governments and FBI assassinating Fred Hampton and not protecting Martin Luther King.
Hart believes in the WC findings but realizes the 1964 conclusion is undermined by the nature of the now known crimes of these investigative agencies.

I think that is a reasonable view from Ely. The Commission reached a conclusion based on all of the evidence it held - including much evidence which is now offered on these pages as proof of something else - and he is still satisfied with its honesty and accuracy, but accepts that evidence was withheld by agencies, probably to conceal their own errors. That is also my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They certainly don't. It is obviously easier to assassinate one person rather than four or five. Especially when you build in the complication of kidnapping, unscathed, the real target. These attackers escaped not just with their weapons and undetected at the time, but with their quarry.

When an actual political assassination has been carried out with military efficiency- the very thing the WC supporters allude to as lacking in the JFK case - then they presumably object on the grounds that it cannot be compared because it was more difficult! I think this is what is called as 'undermining your own case.'

Forget semantics about who was killed in Rome and Cologne back in the late 1970s. Nine men lost their lives in two separate attacks. Are the WC apologists suggesting that the BR and the RAF failed to kill Moro and Schleyer during the initial attack, through incompetence, and then decided to a month later? It's just about possible they are.

Our WC armchair experts on assassination are not required. The JFK assassins (numbers unknown) got it lethally right on the day, as did BR (11)and the RAF (6.)

But the object of the assassination was twofold. To kill the President and to leave no clues to the existence of a conspiracy (which is what you and thousands of others claim exist to this day) If an undertaking relies on huge chunks of luck, but it succeeds, that doesn’t make it a brilliant conspiracy.

Plus, killing Kennedy achieved nothing. For a supposed ‘political’ assassination it served no political purpose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All those excuses you mentioned are in a one word ... HorseS#$%.

Seriously, you want people to belive that nonsense, ?



The obvious answer to your question is simply , multiple gunman with multiple shots from a number of positions .

Oswald wasn't part of any Conspiracy remember, he acted alone according to you , so again ill ask why didn't he make all 3 shots on Houston st?

Those things you mentioned are plain silly for obvious reasons, in that they don't pose any problems whatsoever.

As the Grassy Knoll shooter apparently fired the fatal head shot then the obvious question is why they didn’t simply use him and abandon the pointless TSBD connection. The GK gunman got away totally anonymously. Without Oswald we wouldn’t have had 60 years of suspicion. There is no excuse/explanation for this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its the warren commission conspiracy , you have it it all wrong .

Remember those file were never released due to" national security" risk .

What Risk did LHO pose pray tell ???? , especially when he was murdered 60 years ago. ?????????

That he’d defected to the Soviet Union and threatened to give away secrets. The fact that the FBI were supposed to be watching him and yet he went on to kill the President. His time at the Mexican embassy (known by the CIA) that he attempted to get to Cuba (known by the CIA) that he’d been a part of the FPFC campaign (known by the CIA)

It’s hardly surprising that these embarrassed organisations wanted to keep a lid on certain facts. The fact that they held things back is common knowledge as Warren Commission Council complained regularly about ‘trying to get blood out of a stone.’ No matter what the subject organisations like the CIA and FBI will always try and guard secrets. Likewise MI5 and MI6 over here. Everything that these people do has secrets. Even things that appear straightforward to us on the surface have have ramifications requiring secrecy. Their thinking will always be “if we tell them this, then they might look into that and then find out about the other. Which is what we don’t want.” These involve big secrets and we shouldn’t make assumptions. National Security is s highly complex matter. Added to this complexity you get situations where different institutions don’t agree or have a conflict of self interest.

So yes they have secrets (such is obvious) but we shouldn’t assume to know what they are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you, Lock.
I will look at these one by one and replay in time.
Perhaps you might ponder a respond to two items I have uploaded that no wc believer has addressed.
1) The statement from the White House command center where Oswald is stated to have acted alone before Oswald have been questioned
2) Admiral Burkley offers proof of conspiracy.

Oswald was arrested at 1.50. They had the rifle and they had the fact that he’d killed Tippit and zero evidence of anyone else’s involvement so they made a natural assumption that he was acting alone. The words “..there was no conspiracy” appear to be the words of the author of the book so can we be certain that the word ‘conspiracy’ was actually mentioned aboard Airforce One or was it more a case of Johnson being told that the evidence pointed to Oswald acting alone in killing Kennedy.

As far as Burkley is concerned I can’t answer that as we don’t know what he’d intended to say but many people changed their mind one way or another over time. This report was 14 years after the event which seems rather a long time to start ‘remembering’ things. He hadn’t been talking to Mark Lane by any chance had he? He was 75 years old at that time.

[cobalt]

Neither of your examples is:
* An assassination.

Tell that to the families of the nine security men assassinated.

* A crossfire assassination.

You would have to determine what 'crossfire' means. If two groups of assassins are shooting from two different positions and from different angles that would constitute 'crossfire' to me.

* An attack while the target's vehicle was still moving.

Correct. Although there is a dispute about whether the JFK vehicle was moving at one point.

*

An attempt to portray a crossfire attack as the actions of a lone assassin.

Surely the crucial point. As I said yesterday the Moro and Schleyer attacks were committed by groups without the capacity to control the subsequent narrative. Although, the Lone Gunman theory was not an essential part of the JFK conspiracy; the Warren Commission could have spent a few appendices on the mysterious Mr X behind the picket fence or wherever, had his presence been proved undeniable.

The red herring of the failed de Gaulle assassination was used as an ill-chosen attempt to discredit the JFK assassins. A close range ambush attack by cars involving crossfire (whether successful or not)clearly has no relevance technically to a sniper attack from concealed positions.

[Fiver]

The body was removed before the autopsy therefore the chain of evidence is broken and the autopsy in Maryland could NOT be used in a Texas trial attempting to convict Lee Oswald.

You repeating false statements does not make them true. The chain of custody on JFK's body was never broken.

the time of the crime, killing a president was not a violation of federal law. Therefore, if

Lee Harvey Oswald had not been killed, he would have stood trial in Dallas County under

the Texas statute of murder.

Here you are mostly correct. Murder of JFK would only have been a federal crime if it took place on federal land. If he hadn't been murdered, Oswald would have been tried under Texas state law.

[Fiver]

I think that is a reasonable view from Ely. The Commission reached a conclusion based on all of the evidence it held - including much evidence which is now offered on these pages as proof of something else - and he is still satisfied with its honesty and accuracy, but accepts that evidence was withheld by agencies, probably to conceal their own errors. That is also my opinion.

Exactly. The FBI did not want people knowing that they had been doing a poor job keeping tabs on Oswald, at times losing track of what city he was in and only finding out about the Mexico trip because the CIA told them.

Likewise, the CIA did not want it public that they were bugging the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico, something that would upset all three countries and lose them that source of information.

[Fiver]

2) Admiral Burkley offers proof of conspiracy.

On March 18, 1977, William F Illig, who claimed to be Admiral Burkley's lawyer, claimed Burkley had proof Oswald did not act alone.

Here's Dr Burkley in an October 17. 1967 interview.

"When the President was on the Air Force One returning to Washington, Mrs. Kennedy, as has been noted, sat in the rear of the plane, next to the coffin bearing the President's remains. During the flight I contacted her, and stated that an autopsy would be necessary, and that I was perfectly willing to arrange to have it done at any place that she felt it should be done. She said, "Well, it doesn't have to be done." I said, "Yes, it is mandatory that we have an autopsy. I can do it at the Army hospital at Walter Reed, or at the Navy hospital at Bethesda, or any civilian hospital that you would designate." However, I felt that it should be a military hospital, in that he had been President of the United States and was, therefore, the Commander in Chief of the Military. After some consideration she stated that she would like to have the President taken to Bethesda. This was arranged by telephone from the plane, and it was accomplished. I accompanied the President in the ambulance going to Bethesda, and also accompanied him to the area where the autopsy was performed. And during the course of the autopsy I supervised everything that was done...."

"I also directed that the X-rays be taken for future reference, and had complete knowledge of every thing that was done."

"MCHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?
BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that."

"McHUGH: I see. Do you have any other remarks you wish to make about events in Dallas, or the return trip, or the funeral? ....
BURKLEY: No, I'm sure that this is all made note of by other sources."

Dr Burkley was interviewed by the HSCA in January of 1978.

I, VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY (M.C.) (Ret.) living in Los Angeles, California, being duly sworn make oath as follows: I was interviewed in January, 1978 by T. Mark Flanagan, Jr. and Donald A. Purdy, Jr. of the staff of the Select Committee on Assassinations. During the interview I set forth the substance of the information which follows. At this time I reaffirm that this information is accurate and truthful to the best of my knowledge. This statement is made freely, voluntarily, and with out threats, promises, assurance, or remuneration from any source.

I was Personal Physician to President John F. Kennedy in November 1963 and accompanied President Kennedy on the Texas trip. I was at Parkland Hospital and later at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. I saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital and during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

1. I was with President Kennedy in Dallas. I arrived at the Parkland Hospital within five minutes of the President's arrival. I checked the Presidents physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being administered. My findings clearly indicated that death was certain and imminent.

2. One of the doctors reported to me vital signs of life no longer could be elicited. I rechecked the vital signs of President Kennedy and there was no sign of life. I reported to Mrs. Kennedy who was nearby in the treatment room that President Kennedy was dead.

3. I remained with the President's body in the treatment room until the body was placed in the coffin and I saw it closed. There was no movement or manipulation of the body other than removal of the intravenous equipment during that time.

4. In Dallas I traveled from the hospital to the Air Force One in the ambulance with the President's body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way.

5. I had ordered the United States Naval Hospital to be prepared for performing an autopsy on the body of John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, the permission having been granted by Mrs. Kennedy while enroute. It was to be a complete autopsy with no limitations and no curtailment in time necessary for completion.

6. I traveled from Andrew's Air Force Base in the ambulance with the President's body to the Bethesda Naval Hospital and accompanied the coffin to the autopsy laboratory and saw the body removed from the coffin and placed on the autopsy table.

7. I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets.

8. The autopsy material was retained in a secure area and subsequently turned over by Captain Stover USN to me and a member of the Secret Service. We took this material immediately to the EOB Building where it was placed in a locked file cabinet by the Secret Service.

9. Senator Robert Kennedy, representing Mrs. Kennedy and the Kennedy family, directed that the autopsy material be transferred to the National Archives. This was done on April 26, 1965. See attached letter of transmittal with listing of individual items. The notation under Item #9, one stainless steel container, 7" in diameter x 8", containing gross material, represents the container of the brain. This material was accepted and signed for by Mrs. Evelyn Lincoln and witnessed by three people. Signed copies of these affidavits are attached.

I understand that this affidavit may be introduced and received into evidence by the Select Committee on Assassinations of the United States House of Representatives, and may lead them to make various findings of fact, and the statutes applicable to Congressional investigations, including but not limited to those concerning false statements, obstruction, or misleading, would subject me to criminal penalties for not telling the whole and complete truth in this affidavit.

In January 1997, the ARRB contacted the law firm of MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton to "ask for your assistance in searching any files that may be in the custody of your firm (or with Mr. Illig’s family) that would relate to Mr. Illig’s representation of Admiral Burkley." Burkley's daughter initially agreed to this, but then changed her mind so the records were not released.

[Fiver]

It's hard to believe Burkley was never interviewed by the WC.

Burkley was interviewed by the HSCA and the JFK Library about the assasiantion.

I've never heard a valid medical explanation of Kennedys head movement shown on the Zapruder Film."

A lot of people think the "back and to left" movement was due to the force of a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll, That's Hollywood physics, disproved by Mythbusters in Episodes 25 and 38.

JFK's movement can be explained by the "jet effect" and “neuromuscular reaction”.

Here's Penn and Teller demonstrating the jet effect, in this case pushing a melon towards the direction the bullet was fired from.

Neuromuscular reaction is massive trauma to the brain causing involuntary muscle contraction.