Additional JFK Assassination Documents Released(archives.gov)
archives.gov
Additional JFK Assassination Documents Released
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release?new
81 comments
I respect Bugliosi's incredible undertaking, but I don't find the work as convincing as you do.
There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted:
* The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City
* The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window just five seconds before the shooting began
* The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?)
* Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death)
There are many more.
I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do.
I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.
There are a number of crucial items which go unrebutted:
* The disconnect between Silvia Odio's account of being with Oswald when he was supposedly in Mexico City
* The fact that video shows that Oswald wasn't in the window just five seconds before the shooting began
* The matter of why, if the 6th floor TSBD shooter acted alone, they didn't fire while the motorcade was on Houston (yes, Bugliosi addresses this, but convincingly?)
* Connally's testimony that he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy (which he maintained until his death)
There are many more.
I think that it's imperative on any Oswald-acted-alone theory to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, to convict him in a US court as if he were alive). If it can't do that, then there's still searching to do.
I can't imagine convicting Oswald based on the available evidence.
The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.
There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below.
Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him.
Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA
As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.
There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below.
Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him.
Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter. The ballistics of the bullet entering Kennedy's upper back, exiting his throat, then entering connally's back and then out his chest lines up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA
As I state above, there is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Conversely, 100% of the physical evidence tells us Oswald did it.
> There is at least one eyewitness that saw Oswald in the window from the ground below.
This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly.
Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height).
He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor.
Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction).
He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup.
Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence:
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-...
> Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him.
I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is?
> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.
It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds.
> Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter.
Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony?
I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded.
I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff?
> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.
I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so.
But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards?
Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald.
But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly.
My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.
This kind of statement is what makes the "lone nut" theory seem shaky to me. People say this over and over again, as if to make it true, and it relies on the audience not really knowing the facts very tightly.
Here's the reality: lots of people reporting seeing someone in the window. Only one, Howard Brennan, provided a description that matched Oswald's profile (which, after all, was just white male near the median height).
He said he saw Oswald there minutes before the shooting, when Oswald was seen by several people on the first-floor.
Brennan's account was also quite strange: he said that the shooter was standing and that he was able to see the shooter's pants, both of which are obviously impossible. He claimed that he heard the first shot and then looked over at the TSBD, seeing the rifleman, but the Zapruder film clearly shows him doing what everyone else did: looking over at the grassy knoll at the sound of the first shot (be reminded that the vast majority of witnesses claimed that the shots came from that direction).
He failed to pick Oswald out of a lineup.
Here's a great summary of the Oswald / Dealy Plaza eyewitness evidence:
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-...
> Firing on the motorcade where he did was an easier shot -- the car was moving away from him and at an angle that made his necessary movement much less than if the motorcade was coming at him.
I just... I want to understand this position, but it's just absolutely crazy to me. It's like saying that position 4 on a skeet range is easier than position 1. Have you ever played JFK Reloaded? Does that not show you how much easier the shot on Houston is?
> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.
It's certainly possible that somebody fired a weapon from the 6th floor. I don't think there's particularly strong evidence that it was Oswald. I also think that it's likely that it was a talented, trained, experienced long-range specialist, capable of setting up and firing in under 5 seconds.
> Connally's testimony, frankly, doesn't matter.
Brother / Sister: Don't you see how brashly you are casting aside evidence? This is the person who was literally closest to the murdered President. An experienced hunter. Former military man. How can you just brush off his testimony?
I mean, this is the crux of the case. Connally was not hit by the same bullet, and it's really, really clear. He said so. His wife said so. The motorcycle office right next to him said so. The video shows him almost a full second after the first shot, still holding his hat (with the hand that was shattered by a bullet (I believe a fraction of a second later)) and pretty clearly unwounded.
I just... it feels like you're ignoring all of the most important evidence. I mean, what say you about these things? Don't you think that Bugliosi does some pretty serious backflips to get around this stuff?
> The two black gentlemen sitting in the window just below oswald testified over and over that they heard the shells hitting the floor just above them.
I'm not sure what relevance their color or that they testified "over and over" has. OK, so it's completely possible that somebody was firing from the 6th floor. Indeed several witnesses said so.
But was it Oswald? Or was it somebody far more talented? Somebody with the proper training and experience to be able to set up and fire in 5 seconds, hitting a moving target at 80 yards?
Look: I can respect your position that there is no physical evidence that any person other than Oswald was involved. I even acknowledge that there is some inculpatory evidence against Oswald.
But I think it's a bridge too far to suggest that it's a certainly.
My assessment is that Oswald was not the shooter. If he had a fair trial today, I have to believe that he'd be acquitted.
Your willingness to think critically and challenge "the truth" is great, especially questioning whether Howard Brennan's testimony is reliable and free from manipulation.
There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit?
His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.
There are certainly many dubious points about Oswald as the shooter, but if he was not the shooter, why go home, change clothes, arm himself, then shoot Officer Tippit?
His post-assassination actions are incriminating, and hard to reconcile with an innocent man.
But see, this is what happens in these discussions. First, it's "100% of the evidence in Dealy Plaza implicates Oswald - he is guilty to a moral certainty, etc" - then, when you point out the actual fact pattern, the goalposts are moved miles away to talk about other happenings in Dallas that day. And then months earlier in New Orleans. And then years earlier in Russia, Japan, etc.
I don't want to rehash the entire case in an HN thread, but needless to say there are very rational explanations for nearly all of the incorrect conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.
I think that a sober, rational analysis suggests very, very clearly that this was a crime committed by group, rather than an individual.
I don't want to rehash the entire case in an HN thread, but needless to say there are very rational explanations for nearly all of the incorrect conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.
I think that a sober, rational analysis suggests very, very clearly that this was a crime committed by group, rather than an individual.
See also the Hughes film, which pretty convincingly shows "someone" in the Oswald window:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI
Interesting. This is the first time I've seen the Hughes film used in an effort to show that somebody was in the window. It looks to my eyes like nobody is in the window.
Although I'm loath to quote the FBI as I don't view them as a particularly credible source, I agree with their assessment of the Hughes film:
> “there are no images in any of the exposures … which show the corner window … that can be interpreted in the form of an individual. The forms recorded in this window can be interpreted as in the same general shapes of boxes, found at and just behind the window in question”
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?...
Although I'm loath to quote the FBI as I don't view them as a particularly credible source, I agree with their assessment of the Hughes film:
> “there are no images in any of the exposures … which show the corner window … that can be interpreted in the form of an individual. The forms recorded in this window can be interpreted as in the same general shapes of boxes, found at and just behind the window in question”
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?...
> I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi.
I haven't read the book, and have no opinion either way on it, but if anyone is interested, Bugliosi was apparently inspired to write it after taking part as prosecutor in this TV trial of Oswald, broadcast in 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g
> I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise.
Governments would never release files that support, never mind prove, conspiracies of this magnitude, whether the conspiracy occurred or not.
I haven't read the book, and have no opinion either way on it, but if anyone is interested, Bugliosi was apparently inspired to write it after taking part as prosecutor in this TV trial of Oswald, broadcast in 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g
> I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise.
Governments would never release files that support, never mind prove, conspiracies of this magnitude, whether the conspiracy occurred or not.
Thanks for the recommendation. I found this clip that summarizes Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History [0].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE
EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE
EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.
I didn't downvote you, but I think that people are probably downvoting you because this video is cheesy, silly, melodramatic, and uninformative. It obviously cherry-picks facts, literally cutting people off right before they make exculpatory remarks.
The rapid cuts, background music, and clips of dramatization make it difficult to take seriously.
If this video is the best support for the "lone nut" theory that can fit into 30 minutes, I think that the conspiracy theory looks pretty darn strong by contrast.
The rapid cuts, background music, and clips of dramatization make it difficult to take seriously.
If this video is the best support for the "lone nut" theory that can fit into 30 minutes, I think that the conspiracy theory looks pretty darn strong by contrast.
Thank you, that sums up a small part of the story very well.
One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book.
Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book.
Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
Bugliosi also wrote a good book on the OJ case that similarly cuts through the fluff and lays out the most plausible theory (that OJ did it).
Awesome comment, thanks.
I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, but rather if any dots connect between the assassination and the US government's covert anti-communists, for example.
That would be rather interesting to know, although I'm dubious whether it's useful to know, at this point.
I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle, but rather if any dots connect between the assassination and the US government's covert anti-communists, for example.
That would be rather interesting to know, although I'm dubious whether it's useful to know, at this point.
> I think most sane people aren't curious because of the conspiracy angle,
This seems like a mean-spirited thing to say.
I don't know how large a percentage of the country you regard as "sane", but the "lone not" theory has never really enjoyed much support. More than 60% of people surveyed believe that there was a conspiracy.
I think of myself as quite sane, reasonable, rational, etc. And I think it's plainly obvious that a group, rather than an individual, committed this crime.
This seems like a mean-spirited thing to say.
I don't know how large a percentage of the country you regard as "sane", but the "lone not" theory has never really enjoyed much support. More than 60% of people surveyed believe that there was a conspiracy.
I think of myself as quite sane, reasonable, rational, etc. And I think it's plainly obvious that a group, rather than an individual, committed this crime.
Totally agree- Oswald acted alone.
The question is now how Oswald got radicalized and whether any organizations were involved. He spent time in Russia and had some contact with Cuba, it seems likely he had some association with Russian or Cuban intelligence. Then the question is whether he had any contact with the CIA. It seems also plausible that the CIA might have known about him visiting with the Russians and covered up that knowledge to avoid embarrassment.
The question is now how Oswald got radicalized and whether any organizations were involved. He spent time in Russia and had some contact with Cuba, it seems likely he had some association with Russian or Cuban intelligence. Then the question is whether he had any contact with the CIA. It seems also plausible that the CIA might have known about him visiting with the Russians and covered up that knowledge to avoid embarrassment.
Of course they knew about him visiting the Russians. There are intercepts from the embassies in Mexico City where the Russians were talking about Oswald. He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out.
It's a long story, but basically Oswald "defected" to the Soviet union, realized that they were going to take no interest in him (they put him to work in a radio factory and surveilled him thoroughly), and he got out. He was disillusioned with Soviet communism and later saw Cuba as a "truer" form of communist revolution, so he tried to go there instead. They didn't want him either.
I suspect one reason many files were withheld is that the Mexican government assisted the CIA in tapping the communications of foreign embassies in Mexico City.
It's a long story, but basically Oswald "defected" to the Soviet union, realized that they were going to take no interest in him (they put him to work in a radio factory and surveilled him thoroughly), and he got out. He was disillusioned with Soviet communism and later saw Cuba as a "truer" form of communist revolution, so he tried to go there instead. They didn't want him either.
I suspect one reason many files were withheld is that the Mexican government assisted the CIA in tapping the communications of foreign embassies in Mexico City.
Your guess is also reasonable - the US would have an incentive to keep such 'sources and methods' stuff quiet.
But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.
But my point was not about Oswald having ties to Russia - he lived there for three years. But imagine the CIA had a letter that said "Oswald talked about killing the president" or "the KGB told Oswald he should get a gun and shoot people in America". The CIA probably would have thought that Oswald was crazy and harmless, and that's why they didn't do anything about him. But disclosure of such a letter now would be embarrassing for them.
I believe it was much more spontaneous than that. Oswald failed at just about everything he did. He couldn't keep a job, the Soviets didn't want him, no one was interested in his story when he came back to the US, he was disillusioned with Soviet Communism, he wanted to go to Cuba but was denied, and he suddenly had an opportunity to do something big, which he always dreamed he was going to do. Heck, his diary was even self-titled "historical diary." He was a loser with visions of grandeur for himself that always failed to pan out.
Sorry I keep replying on this thread, but more and more of the book is coming back to me. One only needs to read the transcripts of his interviews with the Dallas Police Department after he was arrested. He wasn't acting or talking like an innocent man. He was cocky, self-assured, and calm. He even put up a communist fist when he was being walked out in front of the press.
Sorry I keep replying on this thread, but more and more of the book is coming back to me. One only needs to read the transcripts of his interviews with the Dallas Police Department after he was arrested. He wasn't acting or talking like an innocent man. He was cocky, self-assured, and calm. He even put up a communist fist when he was being walked out in front of the press.
Thanks for recommending the book above. It seems helpful in separating fact from fiction.
From skimming Oswald's Wikipedia's page, a few questions emerge suggesting both guilt and innocence.
* Why did he walk home, change clothes, and arm himself?
* Why did he shoot Officer Tippit?
* If grandeur was his motive, why deny the crime instead of claiming credit for one of history's most notorious assassinations? Aiming for Connally, not JFK, seems more plausible, but he evidently idolized JFK. Why risk hurting his idol? If neither of these, what was his motive? Being plain crazy is valid, but this motive is not highly documented.
* He seemed protective of his wife, which suggests he loved his family. What was his emotional state before the shooting? Was he excited about the birth of his second daughter or still resentful toward society? It would be great if someone analyzed his psychological state in the weeks before the assassination.
* He seemed to be doing well at the Texas School Book Depository according to Wikipedia. Was he in jeopardy of losing his job? (If yes, this supports the theory he was angry at society and lashed out.)
* Why did he ask for the ACLU attorney? This seems like a strange request for someone who murdered the nation's president.
* Why did he claim the photograph of him holding the rifle was fake? Was it even possible back then to forge something so accurately? A lot seems to hinge on this photograph. If you can prove the photograph was authentic, and that the markings match the rifle at the scene, it presents overwhelming proof Oswald was the shooter, especially since he denies buying the rifle, let alone posing with it.
From skimming Oswald's Wikipedia's page, a few questions emerge suggesting both guilt and innocence.
* Why did he walk home, change clothes, and arm himself?
* Why did he shoot Officer Tippit?
* If grandeur was his motive, why deny the crime instead of claiming credit for one of history's most notorious assassinations? Aiming for Connally, not JFK, seems more plausible, but he evidently idolized JFK. Why risk hurting his idol? If neither of these, what was his motive? Being plain crazy is valid, but this motive is not highly documented.
* He seemed protective of his wife, which suggests he loved his family. What was his emotional state before the shooting? Was he excited about the birth of his second daughter or still resentful toward society? It would be great if someone analyzed his psychological state in the weeks before the assassination.
* He seemed to be doing well at the Texas School Book Depository according to Wikipedia. Was he in jeopardy of losing his job? (If yes, this supports the theory he was angry at society and lashed out.)
* Why did he ask for the ACLU attorney? This seems like a strange request for someone who murdered the nation's president.
* Why did he claim the photograph of him holding the rifle was fake? Was it even possible back then to forge something so accurately? A lot seems to hinge on this photograph. If you can prove the photograph was authentic, and that the markings match the rifle at the scene, it presents overwhelming proof Oswald was the shooter, especially since he denies buying the rifle, let alone posing with it.
Re: wife. He was not a nice man. These details I retained from Stephen King's 11/22/63 book which seemed rather ... unexpectedly well-researched. Here are notes from another author, Mel Ayton: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/motives.htm
"There is also clear evidence that Oswald, like O.J. Simpson, had a history of wife battering. Oswald’s treatment of his wife is documented in the numerous statements made by the Russian émigré community in Dallas and by his wife Marina. According to Ruth Paine, Marina was worried about Lee’s “mental state.” Marina Oswald testified that her husband was given to fits of “unreasonable rage.”"
"Oswald’s treatment of his wife is pertinent to an understanding of his propensity for violence. At one stage Oswald tried to strangle his wife. There were incidents when Oswald hit Marina and she ended up with bruises on her body. At one time during the final year of their lives together some members of the émigré community “rescued” Marina but she returned to her husband after a two week separation."
"Mahlon Tobias recalled a time when a neighbor of the Oswalds complained to him about the couple’s violent arguments. The neighbor reported, “I think he’s really hurt her this time. . . . I think that man over there is going to kill that girl.” Michael Paine was shocked that Lee treated his wife like a vassal and he believed Marina was a person who acted as though she were in “bondage and servitude.”"
"There is also clear evidence that Oswald, like O.J. Simpson, had a history of wife battering. Oswald’s treatment of his wife is documented in the numerous statements made by the Russian émigré community in Dallas and by his wife Marina. According to Ruth Paine, Marina was worried about Lee’s “mental state.” Marina Oswald testified that her husband was given to fits of “unreasonable rage.”"
"Oswald’s treatment of his wife is pertinent to an understanding of his propensity for violence. At one stage Oswald tried to strangle his wife. There were incidents when Oswald hit Marina and she ended up with bruises on her body. At one time during the final year of their lives together some members of the émigré community “rescued” Marina but she returned to her husband after a two week separation."
"Mahlon Tobias recalled a time when a neighbor of the Oswalds complained to him about the couple’s violent arguments. The neighbor reported, “I think he’s really hurt her this time. . . . I think that man over there is going to kill that girl.” Michael Paine was shocked that Lee treated his wife like a vassal and he believed Marina was a person who acted as though she were in “bondage and servitude.”"
I'll try to address a few of these, from memory:
1 - He didn't deny it to the police. He only denied it to the press. Just days before the assassination Kennedy was on the radio making a particularly anti-Cuba speech, which upset Oswald.
2 - The day he assassinated the president, he left all of his cash and his wedding ring in the home his wife was staying, after unexpectedly stopping by the night before to pick up his "curtain rods." When the police arrived at her home, she led them to the garage to show them that his rifle was kept in the garage and lo and behold, it was gone. She herself testified that at that moment she knew he had done it.
3 - I don't think he was in jeopardy of losing his job, but he suddenly had an opportunity to do something "great."
4 - He asked for the ACLU attorney because he knew that attorney also represented the communist party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt
1 - He didn't deny it to the police. He only denied it to the press. Just days before the assassination Kennedy was on the radio making a particularly anti-Cuba speech, which upset Oswald.
2 - The day he assassinated the president, he left all of his cash and his wedding ring in the home his wife was staying, after unexpectedly stopping by the night before to pick up his "curtain rods." When the police arrived at her home, she led them to the garage to show them that his rifle was kept in the garage and lo and behold, it was gone. She herself testified that at that moment she knew he had done it.
3 - I don't think he was in jeopardy of losing his job, but he suddenly had an opportunity to do something "great."
4 - He asked for the ACLU attorney because he knew that attorney also represented the communist party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abt
Thanks for the fast response!
If he was looking for grandeur, why wouldn't he blare it to the press?
The anti-Cuba speech is interesting and could help establish motive.
The most damaging elements against Oswald are that he went home, changed clothes, armed himself, and shot Tippit.
If innocent, why do those things?
One final set of dangling questions: if he didn't care about getting caught, it makes sense that he brought a rifle to work in a bag then left it on the 6th floor with his fingerprints. If he did care, however, why not at least wear gloves and try to be more discreet in transporting the rifle (e.g., at night)? Ineptitude is a reasonable explanation, but there's a difference between stupidity and being unaccomplished. There only seems to be evidence he was unaccomplished. Also was the bag ever found?
If he was looking for grandeur, why wouldn't he blare it to the press?
The anti-Cuba speech is interesting and could help establish motive.
The most damaging elements against Oswald are that he went home, changed clothes, armed himself, and shot Tippit.
If innocent, why do those things?
One final set of dangling questions: if he didn't care about getting caught, it makes sense that he brought a rifle to work in a bag then left it on the 6th floor with his fingerprints. If he did care, however, why not at least wear gloves and try to be more discreet in transporting the rifle (e.g., at night)? Ineptitude is a reasonable explanation, but there's a difference between stupidity and being unaccomplished. There only seems to be evidence he was unaccomplished. Also was the bag ever found?
The incident in Mexico City is, in my opinion, probably the clearest evidence of a conspiracy. If someone doesn't know much about the background of the case and wants to quickly ascertain the plausibility of a conspiracy, I think that this page does a great job of breaking this part down:
http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-cit...
> He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out.
What is the evidence for this narrative?
What do you say to Silvia Odio, who says she was visited by several Cubans and Oswald ("Leon") during the time he was supposedly in Mexico City? Her doctor confirmed that she had confided in him about this visit before the assassination, naming and describing this "Leon" and the strange statements the Cubans made about him.
I think Odio's testimony is the one of the most daunting pieces of evidence for the "lone nut" theory to overcome.
Also, what do you think of the photographs of the man outside the embassy? I hope we can agree that, whatever mix-up happened, that's clearly not Oswald?
http://22november1963.org.uk/a-little-incident-in-mexico-cit...
> He went to Mexico City to try and get a visa to go to Cuba, which they denied, so he went to the Soviet Embassy to try and get them to convince the Cubans to let him in, since he had previously defected to the Soviet Union. They all saw him as a nut and basically laughed him out.
What is the evidence for this narrative?
What do you say to Silvia Odio, who says she was visited by several Cubans and Oswald ("Leon") during the time he was supposedly in Mexico City? Her doctor confirmed that she had confided in him about this visit before the assassination, naming and describing this "Leon" and the strange statements the Cubans made about him.
I think Odio's testimony is the one of the most daunting pieces of evidence for the "lone nut" theory to overcome.
Also, what do you think of the photographs of the man outside the embassy? I hope we can agree that, whatever mix-up happened, that's clearly not Oswald?
[deleted]
Here is what I believe. After Oswald's first shot Kennedy's limo, and the chase vehicles all hit the gas The chase vehicle directly behind Kennedy had FBI agents with M-16's, with the safety off, standard protocol. There is a picture of the car directly behind Kennedy, where the FBI agent has his M-16 resting on the top the windshield angled slightly downward, the chase vehicle as a convertible as well. When all the cars hit the gas to get out after the first Oswald shots I think the agent holding that M-16 accidentally pulled the trigger when he was knocked off balance when the car accelerated. That shot was the head shot was the kill shot. The bullet from kennedy's skull was a different type and smaller caliber than what came from Oswald's gun.
The reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI agent, telling the American public that an FBI agent accidentally did a head shot on the president wasn't something anyone wanted, plus the shot that Oswald hit Kennedy with would have killed him anyway.
The reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI agent, telling the American public that an FBI agent accidentally did a head shot on the president wasn't something anyone wanted, plus the shot that Oswald hit Kennedy with would have killed him anyway.
This r/askhistorians comment makes what I think is a very good rebuttal of this claim (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/75sbk8/kenne...)
Specifically these two paragraphs:
>So there were ten people in/on the car. Each and everyone of them has significant experience with firearms, which includes WWII and/or Korea war experience for most.
>You are going to tell me that these ten guys are going to have a rifle fire right next to their ears, see the President is shot and NOT disarm the man? Not even react? Not grab your ears, because that would hurt like crazy.
Specifically these two paragraphs:
>So there were ten people in/on the car. Each and everyone of them has significant experience with firearms, which includes WWII and/or Korea war experience for most.
>You are going to tell me that these ten guys are going to have a rifle fire right next to their ears, see the President is shot and NOT disarm the man? Not even react? Not grab your ears, because that would hurt like crazy.
Secret Service, actually. This is one of the more reasonable conspiracy theories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error
The most reasonable idea about a conspiracy is that the CIA/FBI knew Oswald had contact with the KGB, were embarrassed they didn't stop Oswald before he acted, and the CIA covered up what they knew about Oswald's Russia/Cuba ties.
This is much better than the least likely consipiracy: Kennedy's head just inexplicably exploded on its own.
Wow, can't believe this is the first time I've heard of this. It actually makes a ton of sense and explains away alot of issues.
Colt (née ArmaLite) AR-15. It seems unlikely that the President's head would have remained intact in that circumstances, or that the medical examiners would otherwise mistake the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range for those of a 5.56 mm round point blank.
It seems unlikely[...]
the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range
those of a 5.56 mm round point blank
The head wouldn't be ripped clean off. It wasn't a 12 gauge shotgun inside the mouth. These weren't explosive shells. They were ball rounds.
It's true that my response would be greatly improved had I done the math comparing the kinetic energy of the bullets in the two scenarios. I relied on reports of the results of M-16 shots to the human head at similar distances.
However, having done further reading on the matter, it has become clear that no such bullet as we are discussing actually struck the President's skull. The bullet struck the President's first thoracic vertebrae and exited from his throat. So I do not feel all that badly about the degree of diligence that I invested in my reply.
However, having done further reading on the matter, it has become clear that no such bullet as we are discussing actually struck the President's skull. The bullet struck the President's first thoracic vertebrae and exited from his throat. So I do not feel all that badly about the degree of diligence that I invested in my reply.
So share your reading material, rather than leave opaque conclusions, as you search for an exit to the reply chain.
Note that this is not the entire collection of documents (some number of pages, perhaps 300, have been withheld - reports so far vary on this).
I believe it was Oswald. After believing it was more than one for a long time, maybe two independent shooters, unaware of the other. I really studied a lot and realized it could only have been Oswald. A most unfortunate fluke of history.
Thank you for your candor.
I always have the same three questions about Oswald for people who subscribe to this theory:
1) What happened in his last three years of his life that took him from Maggie's Drawers to the skill required to execute such incredible precision shooting? Do you believe that he dedicated himself to intense rifle training during this time without anyone knowing?
2) Why didn't he fire as the motorcade approached on Houston?
3) We now know from video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds before the shooting took place. Why not? Why wasn't he watching his target during this time? Even if he wanted to hide the rifle for that moment?
Bonus question: have you ever tried to hit a target at this range? A moving target? Without having your rifle in a ready position 5 seconds prior? It takes years and years of training to get this good.
For my part, I'd certainly vote to acquit Oswald based on what we know today if I were consider this case as a juror. We have video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds prior, and witnesses to establish his whereabouts just 3 minutes later on the first floor (where he was calmly drinking a coke, not out of breath from having darted down six flights of stairs).
But if it was him, this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship and escape.
I always have the same three questions about Oswald for people who subscribe to this theory:
1) What happened in his last three years of his life that took him from Maggie's Drawers to the skill required to execute such incredible precision shooting? Do you believe that he dedicated himself to intense rifle training during this time without anyone knowing?
2) Why didn't he fire as the motorcade approached on Houston?
3) We now know from video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds before the shooting took place. Why not? Why wasn't he watching his target during this time? Even if he wanted to hide the rifle for that moment?
Bonus question: have you ever tried to hit a target at this range? A moving target? Without having your rifle in a ready position 5 seconds prior? It takes years and years of training to get this good.
For my part, I'd certainly vote to acquit Oswald based on what we know today if I were consider this case as a juror. We have video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds prior, and witnesses to establish his whereabouts just 3 minutes later on the first floor (where he was calmly drinking a coke, not out of breath from having darted down six flights of stairs).
But if it was him, this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship and escape.
As a trained long range shooter, may I observe:
such incredible precision shooting?
this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship
It's not incredible. With some decent practice, it's not hard. The limo was hardly moving laterally from that position, and not receding fast. Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.
You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded
There's no reason to believe Oswald couldn't/didn't shoot JFK. A SS agent may have added to the confusion with a negligent discharge though.
such incredible precision shooting?
this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship
It's not incredible. With some decent practice, it's not hard. The limo was hardly moving laterally from that position, and not receding fast. Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.
You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded
There's no reason to believe Oswald couldn't/didn't shoot JFK. A SS agent may have added to the confusion with a negligent discharge though.
So, I am not a trained long range shooter, let me just put that out there. I've only fired maybe 200-300 rounds at distances longer than 70 yards.
But it's not hard to dispute parts of your statement:
> Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.
Most of the experts enlisted to do this have not concluded the same. Some are now ardent believers in multiple-shooter theories.
I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with a fact pattern in which they were out of sight of the target 5 seconds before, had to shoot through foliage at a moving target, and used a sufficiently similar weapon.
What's the closest thing in your opinion?
> You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded
I have played quite a bit with this simulation, and while it gives a pretty good sense of Dealy Plaza, I found three things notable about it:
1) Even after trying many, many times (probably a thousand), I was unable to recreate the Warren Commission scenario
2) The easiest way to kill anyone in the motorcade is to shoot while it's on Houston
3) The rifle is much, much different than a 6.5mm bolt action. It behaves more like an AR-15. It feels semi-automatic with very little recoil.
But it's not hard to dispute parts of your statement:
> Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same.
Most of the experts enlisted to do this have not concluded the same. Some are now ardent believers in multiple-shooter theories.
I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with a fact pattern in which they were out of sight of the target 5 seconds before, had to shoot through foliage at a moving target, and used a sufficiently similar weapon.
What's the closest thing in your opinion?
> You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded
I have played quite a bit with this simulation, and while it gives a pretty good sense of Dealy Plaza, I found three things notable about it:
1) Even after trying many, many times (probably a thousand), I was unable to recreate the Warren Commission scenario
2) The easiest way to kill anyone in the motorcade is to shoot while it's on Houston
3) The rifle is much, much different than a 6.5mm bolt action. It behaves more like an AR-15. It feels semi-automatic with very little recoil.
Most of the experts enlisted to do this have not concluded the same.
Do you know these "experts" personally? I do know ones who have tried it and deemed it a not unreasonable shot.
I have to suspect naysaying "experts" either have ulterior motives in advocating an "it's difficult" angle, or just aren't experts - more likely someone made a comment that got rephrased until it mutated into "experts say it couldn't be done alone..."
FWIW: I've repeatedly hit man-sized targets up to 1000 yards with a bolt-action rifle under tight time constraints. I won't say it's "easy", but it certainly was doable with few days' solid practice.
I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with .... What's the closest thing in your opinion?
What you describe is normal deer hunting. Moving targets, narrow windows of opportunity, bolt-action rifles. A good percentage of 18,000,000 hunters make comparable shots annually.
three things notable about it
1) That was the ultimate goal of releasing the "game": to see if anyone could reproduce that particular scenario precisely. Admittedly, nobody did - though most found that making the JFK-killing shot was not difficult. Then again, a proper study of the data collected would likely show that any given shot was never substantially repeated. If we consider the "agent accidentally fired a shot in a really bad direction" theory, it all does add up.
2) Easiest, yes - when you know exactly how the whole scenario can play out with all variations start to finish. While that would have been the ideal shot, firing when Oswald did (limo traveling away from window) is not substantially more difficult.
3) Mouse & keyboard don't recreate the feel of a bolt-action rifle. That aside, a trained shooter (like ex-Marine Oswald) can operate a bolt-action nearly as fast as a semi-auto, and comes to control & ignore recoil.
Do you know these "experts" personally? I do know ones who have tried it and deemed it a not unreasonable shot.
I have to suspect naysaying "experts" either have ulterior motives in advocating an "it's difficult" angle, or just aren't experts - more likely someone made a comment that got rephrased until it mutated into "experts say it couldn't be done alone..."
FWIW: I've repeatedly hit man-sized targets up to 1000 yards with a bolt-action rifle under tight time constraints. I won't say it's "easy", but it certainly was doable with few days' solid practice.
I am aware of no test in which shooters were challenged with .... What's the closest thing in your opinion?
What you describe is normal deer hunting. Moving targets, narrow windows of opportunity, bolt-action rifles. A good percentage of 18,000,000 hunters make comparable shots annually.
three things notable about it
1) That was the ultimate goal of releasing the "game": to see if anyone could reproduce that particular scenario precisely. Admittedly, nobody did - though most found that making the JFK-killing shot was not difficult. Then again, a proper study of the data collected would likely show that any given shot was never substantially repeated. If we consider the "agent accidentally fired a shot in a really bad direction" theory, it all does add up.
2) Easiest, yes - when you know exactly how the whole scenario can play out with all variations start to finish. While that would have been the ideal shot, firing when Oswald did (limo traveling away from window) is not substantially more difficult.
3) Mouse & keyboard don't recreate the feel of a bolt-action rifle. That aside, a trained shooter (like ex-Marine Oswald) can operate a bolt-action nearly as fast as a semi-auto, and comes to control & ignore recoil.
Can you point me to a video of number 3?
Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA0t5zvaW70
The most relevant part is 35-40 seconds.
Here's a citation explaining what's going on here: http://22november1963.org.uk/how-did-oswald-kill-kennedy#fn0...
And here's the FBI document referenced above, with commentary on the video:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62272#relPage...
The most relevant part is 35-40 seconds.
Here's a citation explaining what's going on here: http://22november1963.org.uk/how-did-oswald-kill-kennedy#fn0...
And here's the FBI document referenced above, with commentary on the video:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62272#relPage...
Thanks, though none of that looks very compelling to me.
I recently read an interesting argument that Oswald actually had a grudge against the Governor, not the President. So it wasn't really an impossibly good shot -- he missed.
Sadly, do not recall where I saw that. Links, anyone?
Sadly, do not recall where I saw that. Links, anyone?
Brings to mind the Zangara shooting, where the alleged target was the Mayor of Chicago and not President-elect FDR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
Ah, was probably this:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assass...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assass...
Not knowing much about it, but taking an outside-in view here. You have a guy (Oswald) with a rifle and telescopic sight, aiming and shooting and purposely trying to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed. Why is it so hard for people to believe Oswald was successful?
Occam's razor. Bayes theorem. Seems incredibly unlikely that there was a second shooter or accidental fluke shot from a secret service agent that just happened to occur right when Oswald was intentionally and purposefully doing it himself.
Occam's razor. Bayes theorem. Seems incredibly unlikely that there was a second shooter or accidental fluke shot from a secret service agent that just happened to occur right when Oswald was intentionally and purposefully doing it himself.
It's not at all clear that Oswald was even involved. It's far more likely that he was on the first floor the entire time, where we was seen minutes before and minutes after the shooting.
We now have video evidence showing that he was not in the window just 5 seconds before the shooting began.
He was seen on the first floor no more than 3 minutes after the shooting took place, and the police officer who saw him insisted that he was not out of breath and did not appear to have just run down six flights of stairs.
The chain of evidence for the bullets is flimsy.
And perhaps most importantly: there is no evidence that Oswald was capable of doing this shooting. He was a mediocre shot as a marine, and no evidence that he dedicated himself to long-range training in the intervening years.
The rifle was not in good shape, and wasn't a very good rifle to begin with.
I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, though I also admit that I'm not sure what exactly did happen on the plaza that day.
edit: Thinking about those downvoting without commenting - just one thing I want to implore: in our system of justice, we demand proof of built beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that there are dozens of reasonable doubts about Oswald's involvement; I have outlined three (what we know of his whereabouts during the events in question, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the matter of whether he was even capable of the act). If you honestly think that you can look someone against whom there is similar evidence and pronounce them guilty, I'd love to hear your comments on the matter and what specifically you think proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This man died without getting a trial; we owe it to our justice system to take a measured approach about the evidence against him.
We now have video evidence showing that he was not in the window just 5 seconds before the shooting began.
He was seen on the first floor no more than 3 minutes after the shooting took place, and the police officer who saw him insisted that he was not out of breath and did not appear to have just run down six flights of stairs.
The chain of evidence for the bullets is flimsy.
And perhaps most importantly: there is no evidence that Oswald was capable of doing this shooting. He was a mediocre shot as a marine, and no evidence that he dedicated himself to long-range training in the intervening years.
The rifle was not in good shape, and wasn't a very good rifle to begin with.
I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, though I also admit that I'm not sure what exactly did happen on the plaza that day.
edit: Thinking about those downvoting without commenting - just one thing I want to implore: in our system of justice, we demand proof of built beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that there are dozens of reasonable doubts about Oswald's involvement; I have outlined three (what we know of his whereabouts during the events in question, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the matter of whether he was even capable of the act). If you honestly think that you can look someone against whom there is similar evidence and pronounce them guilty, I'd love to hear your comments on the matter and what specifically you think proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This man died without getting a trial; we owe it to our justice system to take a measured approach about the evidence against him.
Is that really what you see here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10
FWIW, I think it will be more surprising if evidence emerges which buttresses the "lone nut" theory than the "conspiracy" theory, which is far more plausible in the first place.
There are a few items that may appear in these collections that are relevant today for reasons other than their connection to the murder of a sitting President:
* The particularities of Operation Mongoose - which of course was denied for years in official statements - may still be occurring today without general public knowledge. In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences.
* Oswald's trip to Mexico City (and the other various "sightings" of "Oswald" in the Fall of 1963) may give us clues about the kinds of tactics that are employed when someone is being setup to take the fall for an act. I can definitely imagine similar patterns being employed to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of large-scale cyber attacks in the years to come.
I think that one of the most important things to come out of this is a reminder that these events have shaped a part of American history. It's a good time to talk to your kids and your parents about the murder of JFK if you haven't already.
There are a few items that may appear in these collections that are relevant today for reasons other than their connection to the murder of a sitting President:
* The particularities of Operation Mongoose - which of course was denied for years in official statements - may still be occurring today without general public knowledge. In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences.
* Oswald's trip to Mexico City (and the other various "sightings" of "Oswald" in the Fall of 1963) may give us clues about the kinds of tactics that are employed when someone is being setup to take the fall for an act. I can definitely imagine similar patterns being employed to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of large-scale cyber attacks in the years to come.
I think that one of the most important things to come out of this is a reminder that these events have shaped a part of American history. It's a good time to talk to your kids and your parents about the murder of JFK if you haven't already.
> In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences.
That's like the least astonishing Cold War covert op I can think of. This was the time of generals who though they could levitate and walk through walls, for goodness sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
That's like the least astonishing Cold War covert op I can think of. This was the time of generals who though they could levitate and walk through walls, for goodness sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
General Brown: So they started doing psy-research because they thought we were doing psy-research, when in fact we weren't doing psy-research?
Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: Yes sir. But now that they are doing psy-research, we're gonna have to do psy-research, sir.
Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: Yes sir. But now that they are doing psy-research, we're gonna have to do psy-research, sir.
I agree that it's not terribly astonishing - maybe that was a poor choice of word.
The reason that I'm given pause isn't that it's a huge surprise, but for its implications today: with state influence over agriculture, including via protection for companies like Monsanto via favorable IP law, I think it might be (but might not be) somewhat more relevant today than other aspects of Operation Mongoose.
The reason that I'm given pause isn't that it's a huge surprise, but for its implications today: with state influence over agriculture, including via protection for companies like Monsanto via favorable IP law, I think it might be (but might not be) somewhat more relevant today than other aspects of Operation Mongoose.
Cool. Will wait for a news outlet (i.e. someone else) to go through the documents and write up a summary, though ;)
How to Read the JFK Assassination Files: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559312
Nobody more trustworthy than the news media!
While I understand where you're coming from, I know I personally don't have the requisite background in that area of history to be able to properly interpret the documents myself.
Of course, this doesn't mean one has to uncritically accept anyone else's interpretation. Nor does it mean anyone else should feel the need to lean on someone else's interpretation! The more eyes, the better!
Of course, this doesn't mean one has to uncritically accept anyone else's interpretation. Nor does it mean anyone else should feel the need to lean on someone else's interpretation! The more eyes, the better!
especially that new one that popped up recently.. what it called? Kafe News?
[deleted]
Trump was about to release all the files and then the CIA recommended he not do that.
The CIA also wrote this nice memo for Trump:
> "I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted" on the records, the memo said. "At the same time, executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice -- today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation's security."
You've gotta love the "I have no choice" wording...
From the best book on this topic, JFK and the Unspeakable:
> The book's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus
> The book highlights the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the Central Intelligence Agency's attempt to entrap Kennedy into a full-scale US invasion of Cuba. Citing Daniel Schorr's conclusion that "In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed", the book argues that the result of this operation was Kennedy's avowed intention "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
> The forced resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles and several deputies served notice that this statement might be followed through. The book describes Kennedy's conflict with the military, including over the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (ratified by the Senate in September 1963), and a back-channel to Fidel Castro in September 1963, via William Atwood, aimed at normalising relations, and National Security Action Memorandum 263 (beginning withdrawal from Vietnam).
> The book also cites an April 1962 confrontation with the US steel industry, led by U.S. Steel, which together with five other steel companies declared a price increase shortly after an agreement had been brokered to avoid them, in order to control inflation. The Kennedy administration raided corporate offices, issued subpoenas, and tasked the Defense Department with overseas marketing of its steel. Shortly after the steel industry backed down, Henry Luce's Fortune published an editorial, headlined "Steel: The Ides of April", stating that the price rise had been conceived in political terms as a means to either damage the President's credibility, or to unite the business world against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable
Curtis LeMay called JFK an appeaser to his face, and accused him of endangering America's safety. https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Cri...
The CIA also wrote this nice memo for Trump:
> "I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted" on the records, the memo said. "At the same time, executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice -- today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation's security."
You've gotta love the "I have no choice" wording...
From the best book on this topic, JFK and the Unspeakable:
> The book's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus
> The book highlights the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the Central Intelligence Agency's attempt to entrap Kennedy into a full-scale US invasion of Cuba. Citing Daniel Schorr's conclusion that "In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed", the book argues that the result of this operation was Kennedy's avowed intention "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
> The forced resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles and several deputies served notice that this statement might be followed through. The book describes Kennedy's conflict with the military, including over the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (ratified by the Senate in September 1963), and a back-channel to Fidel Castro in September 1963, via William Atwood, aimed at normalising relations, and National Security Action Memorandum 263 (beginning withdrawal from Vietnam).
> The book also cites an April 1962 confrontation with the US steel industry, led by U.S. Steel, which together with five other steel companies declared a price increase shortly after an agreement had been brokered to avoid them, in order to control inflation. The Kennedy administration raided corporate offices, issued subpoenas, and tasked the Defense Department with overseas marketing of its steel. Shortly after the steel industry backed down, Henry Luce's Fortune published an editorial, headlined "Steel: The Ides of April", stating that the price rise had been conceived in political terms as a means to either damage the President's credibility, or to unite the business world against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable
Curtis LeMay called JFK an appeaser to his face, and accused him of endangering America's safety. https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Cri...
> because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns
Well that certainly makes it sound like something important is hidden.
Well that certainly makes it sound like something important is hidden.
I took this to mean they investigation was so thorough it uncovered and documented lots of potentially embarrassing stuff, but none of that was relevant to who shot Kennedy.
Not that they figured out who shot (or set up Oswald to shoot) Kennedy, but they're covering it up because it is embarrassing.
Not that they figured out who shot (or set up Oswald to shoot) Kennedy, but they're covering it up because it is embarrassing.
I understand what you're saying and while those things might be able to cause tension, I don't think that anything "embarrassing" could be a risk to national security.
I am still unsure. I remember there was a talk circulating around the Internet, questioning how many people were actually in the car during the JFK assassination. Is that a fake news?
Well, there are lots of pictures and film of the event, so unless someone is hiding in the trunk I'd say that's fake.
Thank you for your request to download the 2017 release of JFK assassination files. Completely download all 11 files to the same directory then open jfk.zip to unzip all.
Download times may be significant due to the large size.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
Download times may be significant due to the large size.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
Criminals love their gang signals.
This is the work of a friend of mine, Bob Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ
When I saw it years ago, I had to verify it myself.
Note the odds calculation is wrong due to a rounding error. The correct odds are: 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 = 1 / 5,153,632
Details: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ
This is the work of a friend of mine, Bob Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ
When I saw it years ago, I had to verify it myself.
Note the odds calculation is wrong due to a rounding error. The correct odds are: 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 = 1 / 5,153,632
Details: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ
Why were they withheld?
My guess is that the CIA knew more about Oswald's radicalization then has been previously disclosed. The guy spent three years in Russia, had a Russian wife, and had some contact with Cuba. Almost certainly he had some contact with Russian and/or Cuban intelligence.
If the CIA knew about that and failed to stop Oswald, they might have some incentive to keep their records classified.
If the CIA knew about that and failed to stop Oswald, they might have some incentive to keep their records classified.
These are what? Documents compiled by various intelligence community agencies? All of which are versed and comfortable with propaganda, misinformation, etc. On top of that, some info has (allegedly) been withheld.
So now we must ask:
1) Why now?
2) Why by Trump?
3) If this release has a political agenda (and certainly it does) then who might win from its release? Who might lose? And what current issue will be ignored while the MSM and the proles are distracted by this smoke screen?
So now we must ask:
1) Why now?
2) Why by Trump?
3) If this release has a political agenda (and certainly it does) then who might win from its release? Who might lose? And what current issue will be ignored while the MSM and the proles are distracted by this smoke screen?
1) Because the 1992 JFK Records Act put a 25-year timer on their release. The deadline for that release was...you guessed it, October 26, 2017.
2) Because Trump is president on October 26, 2017, 25 years after the passage of the JFK Records Act.
3) Irrelevant because of the above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa...
2) Because Trump is president on October 26, 2017, 25 years after the passage of the JFK Records Act.
3) Irrelevant because of the above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa...
Answer for 1, 2, and 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa... (TL;DR - On October 26, 1992, a law was passed requiring the release of the files on October 26, 2017)
Trump has nothing to do with this. The records were sealed and scheduled to be released today a long, long time ago. There is no political agenda.
waves hand
Move along.
waves hand
Move along.
What do you mean by your numbered points? These records are released because the JFK assassination records act of 1992 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_As...) stated they must be released by, well, today.
[deleted]
They've been slated for release now for ages, long before Trump. He has little to do with it.
I was a die hard conspiracy believer because I grew up in a household where my mom lived through the assassination and she had nearly every conspiracy book available around the house. After reading Bugliosi's book I am absolutely now convinced that Oswald did it alone. Bugliosi's book absolutely devastates all of the conspiracy theories.
I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise.
There is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Full stop.
If you search around for interviews online with Bugliosi, you can get a feel for the breadth and depth of his work.