JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

This one is a bit of a jaw dropper if I’m being honest. Here we have a photograph of the President immediately after being struck by the final bullet. So what can we all see?

On the left (the rear of Kennedy’s head) we see hair. To the right, and around the area of his ear, we see a huge explosion wound.

Only on planet conspiracy can someone even dream of suggesting that the left side of the head is the one that shows the head injury.

I’m sorry chaps but this one utterly beggars belief.

Then we get this:

”Patrick, the answer from the WC is simply...the truth can be adjusted.”

Another absolute jaw-dropper from the side that, to make their theories fit, conveniently yell fake, forgery, tampering and fit-up at every opportunity.

…

How many times, in ripper discussions, do we discuss witness fallibility? George, for example, believes that John Richardson was mistaken and missed a mutilated corpse lying a foot from his left boot. (Let me be clear, he’s not the only one that believes this and I’m not suggesting for a moment that this isn’t his honestly held opinion), but we have to ask why George, and others, are so reluctant to accept witness error in this case? So much so that they will rubbish actual, physical evidence like the ZF, autopsy photos and x-days?

Favouring a rear head wound are some Dealey Plaza witnesses and some staff at Parkland.

I would go so far as to say that I wouldn’t call any DP witness, no matter what side of the debate their testimony favours, as being particularly reliable. They were fallible human beings in an unbelievable stressful situation make judgment calls on things that happened in the blink of an eye. After the first and second shots these people would all have been more interested in protecting their own and their families lived. How can anyone suggest that these were good witnesses. If we apply the police ADVOCATE system for assessing the strength of witnesses not one of them would score anything but poor. And yet conspiracy theorists treat them as close to infallible.

Then we have this level of utter confidence in those Parkland doctors and staff. So much so that CT’s are quite happy to dismiss/ignore those staff that didn’t agree with the majority view. A group are largely inexperienced staff. None of whom could see the wound because Kennedy was lying on his back and no one turned him over or lifted his head. And let’s be totally honest here…how many of those staff were situated anywhere near Kennedy’s head? 3, 4, 5? Some were behind other doctors, some where in other parts of the room, many would have been around the table and the lower half of Kennedy’s body. And as the actual evidence tells us where the wound was and we all know about gravity then it doesn’t take a genius to consider the blood running from the actual wound to ‘pool’ at the base of Kennedy’s head. So those members of staff see a bloodied mess at the base of Kennedy’s head and with partial views and in the trauma of the situation combined with the fact that they were trying to resuscitate the President gives us a very clear, reasonable suggestion for what happened.

To recap….no police investigation EVER puts human witnesses above video and photographic evidence but this is EXACTLY what conspiracy theorists are doing because they want to make things ‘fit.’ And they do it as if they’re on some kind of higher ground.

Video, photographic and x-Ray evidence trumps human witnesses every time.

Kennedy was hit in the head from behind. The shot was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All else is fantasy.

[FrankO]

It shows the throat incision and the bullet wound in the back, not the neck, which is clearly well below the neck incision. It also shows the small wound in the temple and the large wound in the occipital area at the back of the head.

Hi George,

If the sketch was accurate, then we’d have to believe the shot had come from below. Or if we, as you do, believe that the wounds to back & throat were caused by 2 different shots (one from the front & one from the back), then we’d have to believe that the one who fired the shot to the back had chosen a rifle and/or ammunition that wouldn’t much penetrate the president’s back. And one has to wonder what happened to the bullet causing the throat wound.

That aside, Dr. Burkley wrote that the back wound was at "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra". When I look at anatomical illustrations of the lungs and skeleton, they show that the top of the lungs are above the uppermost rib, which is attached to T1 (and attached at a lower level to the sternum). If a downward bullet would have hit just above the level of T3 and assuming it would traverse the upper body, then it would very likely have entered the right lung or at least clearly wounded it. This doesn’t correspond with Dr. Humes’ findings, who’d opened up the chest cavity and found that the top of the right lung was bruised, but not penetrated. If it would have hit at the level of T3, it would have hit the third rib and fractured it. So, it must have been above T3, quite possibly between T1 & T2 and the attached ribs.



Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

The Single Bullet Theory is one of many ballistic theories in this case. It fails in a major respect because Humes did not complete the Autopsy in tracing it's path.

The Single Bullet Theory fails the trajectory and alignment test in terms of acute angles and alignment of Kennedy and Connally. This is also proven using technology and photographic evidence.

I agree with you Fiver that the Single Bullet would be possible. But it would have to meet certain tests as mentioned. Humes own Autopsy sketches show an offset from the back wound and throat of several inches. The sketches that show a straight line path that Humes used in his testimony was not based on photographic evidence as access was not granted.

Because Humes failed to trace the neck wound, the possibility of the throat wound being an entrance wound is Possible.

The Single Bullet became invalid because Humes failed to trace the throat wound. But Specter and the WC needed Oswald to be guilty so the Country would not have to sit through months of trials, like OJ Simpson.

Hi Patrick,

I don't think the SBT becomes invalid because Humes failed to trace the throat wound. Of course, that's a great shame and not something to be proud of, but he did examine the thoracic cavity and found the bruising/concusion of the neck muscles and on the top of the right lung and the pleura.

And I'd like to see some of the technology and photographic evidence used/made during the trajectory and alignment test you speak of. Could you point me to that or share it here?

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

.. Maybe Frazier didn't know the difference between 2 feet and 3 feet?"

Maybe Frazier didn't pay too much attention to the package?

Mr. BALL - When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - Now we have over here this exhibit for identification which is 364 which is a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made affair. Will you take a look at this. Does this appear to be anything like the color of the sack you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say it was, it was more a color like this.
Mr. BALL - It was more like this color, correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did it have tape on it or did you notice it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, like I say, I didn't notice that much about it as I didn't see it very much.
Mr. BALL - Will you take a look at it as to the length. Does it appear to be about the same length?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - We will just use this. Was one end of the sack turned over, folded over? Do you remember that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I was saying, when I glanced at it, but I say from what I saw I didn't see very much of it, I say the bag wasn't open or anything like it where you can see the contents. If you was going to say putting--to more or less a person putting in carefully he would throw it in carefully, you put it more toward the back. If he had anything folded up in it I didn't see that.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember Ididn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

Why do you act as if Frazier measured and minutely examined the package?

[Fiver]

Oswald was really lucky that Buell Wesley Frazier was able to give him those lifts at such short notice, otherwise he'd have had to carry his rifle to work on the bus.

What short notice?

Mr. FRAZIER - We got talking back and forth and he come to find out I knew his wife was staying there at the time with this other woman and so I thought he would go out there and I said, "Are you going to be going home this afternoon?"
And he told me then, he told me that he didn't have a car, you know, and so I told him. I said, "Well, I live out there in Irving,"- I found out he lived out there and so I said, "Any time you want to go just let me know."
So I thought he would go home every day like most men do but he told me no, that he wouldn't go home every day and then he asked me could he ride home say like Friday afternoon on weekends and come back on Monday morning and I told him that would be just fine with me.
I told him if he wanted a ride any other time just let me know before I go off and leave him because when it comes to quitting time some of these guys, you know, some of them mess around the bathroom and some of them quit early and some of them like that and some leave at different times than others.
But I said from talking to him then, I say, he just wanted to ride home on weekends with me and I said that was fine.

[Fiver]

Oswald was really lucky that the Post Office worker who handled the rifle delivery to his PO Box didn't know the rules about not accepting deliveries to people with different names to specific PO Boxes... (and also lucky that the worker who let him pick the rifle up was unaware of that rule as well...

Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."

The Post Office followed the rules. A. J. Hiddell was on the list of people allowed to pick up deliveries to PO Box 2915.

[Fiver]

Ordering a rifle using an assumed name for the crime that you hope to use to get your real name into the history books. Sounds like a foolproof plan right there.

At the time Oswald ordered the rifle, JFK wasn't even planning on going to Texas.

[Fiver]

12:25 PM, when the limo is scheduled to pass, LHO is on the second floor. Very clever. How better to become a big somebody and get into the history books than being five floors away from your snipers nest and your weapon at the precise time your target is scheduled to pass?

Now you're just making things up. Oswald was last seen on the 6th floor shortly before noon.

Oswald claimed to be in the 1st floor lunch room with Harold Norman and James Jarman after that. Norman and Jarman weren't in the lunch room.

Oswald never mentioned Danny Arce or Jack Dougherty, who were in the lunch room. That's a strange omission if Oswald really was in the lunch room. Arce, Dougherty, Jarman, and Norman all contradict Oswald.

At the time of the shootings, Harold Norman, James Jarman, and Bonnie Ray Williams were not in the lunch room. We have photographic evidence that they were on the 5th floor at that time.

So even if Oswald was telling the truth, he had at least 10 minutes to get to the 6th floor, and I'm fairly sure the TSBD elevators were faster than that.

[Fiver]

He was a hell of an athlete... he beat Victoria Adams down that staircase and she two floors head start and no evidence to hide.

If Victoria Adams is correct, it's an even bigger problem for the Conspiracy's not-Oswald, who has to make it one more flight and out the door before Adams gets there.

Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of shoes did you have on?
Miss ADAMS - Three-inch heels.

Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was between the time the shots were fired and the time you left the window to start toward the stairway?
Miss ADAMS - Between 15 and 30 seconds, estimated, approximately.
Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it was, or do you think it took you to get from the window to the top of the fourth floor stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I don't think I can answer that question accurately, because the time approximation, without a stopwatch, would be difficult.
Mr. BELIN - How long do you think it took you. to get from the window to the bottom of the stairs on the first floor?
Miss ADAMS - I would say no longer than a minute at the most.
Mr. BELIN - So you think that from the time you left the window on the fourth floor until the time you got to the stairs at the bottom of the first floor, was approximately 1 minute?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, approximately.
Mr. BELIN - As I understand your testimony previously, you saw neither Roy Truly nor any motorcycle police officer at any time?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.

Adams needed to run across the 4th floor and down four flights of stairs in 60 seconds while wearing 3 inch heels.

Mr. BELIN - When you got to the bottom of the first floor, did you see anyone there as you entered the first floor from the stairway?
Miss ADAMS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Who did you see?
Miss ADAMS - Mr. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.

Not Roy Truly and Officer Baker, she saw Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.

Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.

Mr. BALL - Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL - While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.

Shelly and Lovelady left the TSBD and only returned minutes after Truly and Baker entered the TSBD. So based on Adam's own testimony, she must have reached the first floor after Shelly and Lovelady returned.

And that's a lot more than 1 minute.

[GBinOz]

Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."

The Post Office followed the rules. A. J. Hiddell was on the list of people allowed to pick up deliveries to PO Box 2915.

Box 2915 was in Dallas, not in New Orleans.

Mr. HOLMES. I might cover the record of his rental of the post office box in New Orleans. Do you want me to go into that?
Mr. BELIN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. HOLMES. The box rental records at New Orleans show that on June the 3d, 1963, post office box 30061 was rented to L. H. Oswald. Let me see there. Some of my information comes at times I see 30061 and at times I see 30016. I had it two places. One is a written memorandum on that new setup, and the other is what I took over the phone, and both of them show 61.

Yet another deliberately deceptive post from this poster.

[Fiver]

This bullet has no certifiable chain-of-possession prior to its being in the possession of FBI agent Elmer Todd.

And for that reason, if I were Oswald's lawyer, I would have gotten this "evidence" thrown out at trial.

This has been answered before. All of the listed people were interviewed.

Lets look at the chain of custody.

* Parkland maintenance employee Darrell Tomlinson finds the bullet by complete luck. He gives the bullet to OP Wright. When shown CE 399, Tomlison says "it appears to be the same one" but he "cannot positively identify the bullet".
* Parkland personnel officer OP Wright gives the bullet to Richard Johnsen. When shown CE 399, Wright "stated that it looked like the one he gave to Johnsen on 11/22/63, but he could not positively identify it."
* Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen gives the bullet to James Rowley. When shown CE 399, Johnsen "stated that he could not identify that slug as the one he
received from Wright and gave to James Rowley".
* Secret Service head James Rowley gives the bullet to Elmer Todd. When shown CE 399, Rowley "advised he could not identify this bullet as the
one he received from . . . Johnsen and gave to . . . Todd".
* FBI Agent Elmer Todd marks his initials on the bullet. Elmer Todd gives the bullet Robert Frazier. When shown CE 399, Todd positively identifies it "from initials marked thereon".
* FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, when shown CE 399, positively identifies it because "It has Frazier’s mark on it."

Obviously, the Parkland employees didn't know the way to be able to positively identify an object was to make a distinctive mark on it in a way that does not interfere with lab examination of the evidence. I don't have enough information to tell if the Secret Service should have, The FBI did.

And as repeatedly pointed out, the stretcher bullet (CE 399) was conclusively matched Oswald's rifle and to the bullet fragments taken from Connally's wrist (CE 842).

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Frank-

The Laser Scan and Digital Twin technology used by Knott Engineering. Online Photos that show the School Book Depository and large X painted in spots in the public domain and the Garrison Appeal for access to Xrays and photos dated January 31, 1969.

The Appeal from 1969 challenges the alignment in terms of geometry and anatomy. I believe there will be a reference to Hood College for this document.

If you can't find this stuff let me know.

Just a note. The issue of alignment is an old issue. The sketches Humes used in his testimony to describe these wounds was done by a sketch artist and not based on xrays or photos. According to Humes they were not granted access.

By not tracing the bullet trajectory the Single Bullet Theory was born. The mis step by Humes created it because it did not prove actual trajectory.

There are photos of guns pointing out the 6th Floor window down to the Street. These photos were apparently created for the Public to show alignment and ease of target access. However they actually reveal and support the acute angle reality of the location on the 6th floor. Knott illustrates that.

Connally would have to be sitting 10 inches to Kennedys left for the Single Bullet to hit under Connallys right armpit.

Arlen Specter needed a Single Bullet to make Oswald the killer.
His theory is disproven.

Cheers

[Patrick Differ]

Frank & All- to access info i speak of ..Google

Knott laser JFK
Dealy Plaza JFK X Photos
Garrison Appeal for Autopsy Xrays January 31 1969

There is another Laser Company calked Lidar that also concludes what Knott does. Dated June 2024.

Cheers

[cobalt]

At the time Oswald ordered the rifle, JFK wasn't even planning on going to Texas.

I think Fiver stated this to argue against the possibility of there being anything like a conspiracy to shoot JFK in Dallas. After all, why 'frame' Oswald in advance of a visit that has not even been organised?

But like many comments that appear on this site lecturing assassins as to how to carry out their trade, it simply lacks practical knowledge. A JFK visit to Texas had been mooted before March 1963 although confirmation was only announced around the middle of the year. JFK had visited Dallas in 1960 prior to his election, travelling in a open car down Main Street, so it could be anticipated that he would do something similar prior to his 1964 campaign.

The decision to kill JFK, as I understand it, was born out of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and cemented by his agreement with Khrushchev over Cuba in 1962. Planning assassinations a year or two ahead is not unusual. In 1981 the IRA took the decision to assassinate Margaret Thatcher, then PM of Great Britain, in response to her decisions regarding hunger strikers inside the prison system. However the actual attack- the bombing of a hotel where she was staying in Brighton- was only carried out in 1984 and was unsuccessful although a number of her colleagues were killed. IRA preparations had included observing closely Conservative Party conferences in 1981 and 1982 with various, and changing, IRA personnel involved. Despite the IRA having a few 'touts' in its ranks, one of whom was temporarily in charge of the eventual bomb placer Magee, the security services did not seem aware of the threat throughout three years' planning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you mean when you say “as I understand it,” Cobalt? It sounds like you are basing it on evidence? I can’t see a single piece of evidence. All that we get presented with is a list of ‘possible’ motives which leads some to a ‘group of shady conspirators’ who might (possibly - in their opinion) have benefitted for Kennedy’s death. This can’t be considered evidence of anything.

If a Carpenter murdered someone from the Forestry Commission would we assume that his motive was something to do with the wood working industry? So why do we have to assume that this was a politically motivated murder? Kennedy was a politician of course. Oswald had political interests/belief certainly. We still shouldn’t assume that the two are linked though. Caution is needed. We wouldn’t make such an assumption in other crimes so why do we do it in this case? I think that the answer to that particular question is hardly difficult to arrive at. People need the political angle as a ‘plot theme’ for this particular murder. What about ‘disaffected, mentally ill loser looking to show the world that he was good enough and smart enough to kill the world’s most powerful man? That’s just as good an explanation and it actually fits what we know about Oswald.

Then:

”But like many comments that appear on this site lecturing assassins as to how to carry out their trade.”

Not just assassins though - conspirators too.

These people don’t suddenly step outside of human existence. Reason, logic and common sense have to apply to them too. You believe that these people acted as no sentient human beings would have done. How can you hold this view?

What you and others are suggesting is that the plotters weren’t bothered if the assassination succeeded or not. They weren’t bothered either about the possibility of being revealed as part of a plot to kill the President. This isn’t worthy of a seconds consideration. They would have wanted the best assassin using the best, untraceable equipment. They would have had the fewest amount of people in-the-know and they would certainly have wanted this entire operation to be as simple as possible (reducing the number of things that could go wrong) They would have provided a well organised escape for the assassin. And they absolutely 100% certainly wouldn’t have left 1000 highly difficult jobs still to do post-assassination for it to have even a chance of succeeding and going undetected. Then they had to hope that in the following years not one single person of this cast of a 1000 blabbed (and people are so good at keeping secrets aren’t they)

This doesn’t make the kind of conspiracy suggested involving Oswald unlikely…it makes it utterly impossible. It’s not a case of it being ‘doubtful’ it’s a case of 1000% certainly COULDN’T (under any circumstances) have occurred. Anyone that says it is would simply be wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Conspiracy theorists constantly want to have their cake and eat it. They want a group of super, high-level plotters who have control over every aspect of American life (police, military, Secret Service, CIA, FBI, legal profession, medical profession) and yet….they are just a bunch of village idiots who knock up a plot so convoluted that no spy thriller writer would touch it with a barge pole. One that leaves a thousand ways that the plan could crumble and fail (with some of these options revealing those plotters to the gaze and judgment of the public). One that requires huge slabs of luck. One that requires untraceable forgeries and faking. One that gets otherwise decent men to betray their country.

Again….absolutely impossible. CT’s have set out with a belief that appeals to them - big bad government plot to kill the golden haired hero and in the process they frame the poor, powerless ‘little man.’ Then they proceed to see everything through conspiracy goggles.

There was no conspiracy. Like Martin Luther King, like RFK, like Gandhi….killed by one unhappy man. No goulish, feeble, inadequate conspiracy theories are required.

The case was solved in 1963. It remains solved today. Nothing will change. Oswald will never be posthumously exonerated, and not because of any silly conspiracy fantasy, but because he was 100% certainly a double murdering traitor who has gained a quite distasteful fan club over the years. It reminds me of those women who fall in love with serial killers. Each to their own I guess.