JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 14, 2020, 02:38:19 AM
-
The last government body to conduct an official investigation into the JFK assassination was the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which investigated the case from 1977 to 1979. The HSCA’s investigation was a major step forward in the case. HSCA investigators and experts found a large amount of new evidence and laid the foundation for the development of important additional evidence by later researchers.
Lone-gunman theorists cite some of the HSCA’s research, but they reject most of the committee’s main conclusions, especially the finding that there was probably a conspiracy and that four shots were fired at JFK. Conspiracy theorists agree with most of the HSCA’s main conclusions, but many of them believe the committee avoided the facts on several key issues and too often failed to pursue important leads.
By any standard, the HSCA’s findings and research support the conspiracy view far more than they do the lone-gunman view. Here are some of the conclusions and evidences found in the HSCA’s report and in the HSCA’s hearings and exhibits:
* Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy. This was the key finding of the committee, a finding that the committee argued was supported by existing evidence and by additional evidence that it developed during its investigation.
* Four shots were fired during the assassination, one of them from the grassy knoll. Oswald fired the three other shots.
* Two gunmen were involved in the assassination, one of whom fired from the grassy knoll.
* Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties.
* Ruby lied about his reason for shooting Oswald.
* Ruby's shooting of Oswald resembled a Mafia hit to silence a witness or conspirator.
* The WC ignored the clear weight of the evidence regarding how Ruby entered the DPD basement to shoot Oswald.
* Someone helped Ruby get into the DPD basement.
* The DPD left doors unlocked along Ruby's route into the basement.
* The DPD removed security from the area near the stairway that Ruby used to enter the basement shortly before he entered the basement via that stairway.
* Oswald might have had links to Jack Ruby.
* Ruby's AGVA alibi doesn't seem to be a credible explanation for all the long-distance phone calls Ruby made to Mafia contacts all across the country after Kennedy's visit to Dallas was announced.
* Ruby's polygraph test indicates he was quite possibly lying when he denied he was involved in the assassination.
* Photographic evidence shows that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting (obviously, it could not have been Oswald).
* Silvia Odio's account of meeting with Oswald in company with two anti-Castro Cubans at a time when Oswald was supposedly in Mexico City is credible.
* A Dallas police dictabelt recording contains four impulses that are the result of the sounds of four gunshots that were fired in Dealey Plaza during the shooting (and possibly as many as seven to nine such impulses). One of these impulses was caused by a shot that came from the grassy knoll.
* Connally was hit by the same bullet that hit Kennedy, but the Zapruder film shows Kennedy was first hit at around Z188-190. (Lone-gunman theorists now reject this conclusion about when Kennedy was first hit because they know it proves there were four shots and because they're now committed to the alleged magic-bullet hit occurring at Z224.)
* The eyewitness reports of seeing puffs of smoke above the firing point on the grassy knoll are credible.
* Abraham Zapruder's report that one of the shots caused a great reverberation around him indicates that shot came from the grassy knoll, since it is very unlikely that a shot from the sixth-floor window could have caused such a reverberation.
* The FBI and the CIA misled and withheld information from the WC.
* Military intelligence destroyed important evidence relating to the case that should not have been destroyed.
* The FBI failed to properly investigate an informant report that an anti-Castro activist named Homer S. Echevarria appeared to have advance knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy. Just one day before the assassination, during a discussion about a shipment of illegal weapons for anti-Castro activities, Echevarria told the informant that his anti-Castro group had plenty of money and that they would proceed "as soon as we take care of Kennedy." The Secret Service tried to investigate the matter, but the FBI made it clear it wanted the investigation halted, and, incredibly, the FBI itself did not pursue the issue further. The HSCA noted that Echevarria was associated with Juan Francisco Blanco-Fernandez, military director of the anti-Castro group DRE, and that the arms deal was being financed through one Paulino Sierra Martinez by hoodlum elements in Chicago and elsewhere. The committee also found that Echevarria may have been a member of the 30th of November anti-Castro organization, adding,
The 30th of November group was backed financially by the Junta del Gobierno de Cuba en el Exilio (JGCE), a Chicago-based organization run by Paulino Sierra Martinez. JGCE was a coalition of many of the more active anti-Castro groups that had been rounded in April 1963; it was dissolved soon after the assassination. Its purpose was to back the activities of the more militant groups, including Alpha 66 and the Student Directorate, or DRE, both of which had reportedly been in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. Much of JGCE's financial support, moreover, allegedly came from individuals connected to organized crime. (HSCA Report, p. 134)
* Security arrangements for the presidential motorcade might have been uniquely insecure.
* Although the committee said it "could not credit" former anti-Castro leader Antonio Veciana's story of having seen a CIA officer meet with Oswald before the assassination, the committee did find some support for aspects of Veciana's story. Veciana claimed that prior to the assassination the CIA assigned him a case officer who went by the name of Maurice Bishop. Veciana said he saw Oswald and Bishop talking on one occasion. Some of the committee's staff suspected that Bishop's real name was David Atlee Phillips, a CIA officer who had been heavily involved in anti-Castro activities.
* The committee concluded Veciana probably did in fact have a case officer from some government agency, and it noted the CIA had assigned case officers to lesser figures in the anti-Castro movement. The committee found a record of $500 in operational expenses, given to Veciana by a person with whom the CIA had maintained a longstanding operational relationship.
* Phillips denied under oath that he had even known Veciana. The committee said it suspected Phillips was lying when he denied knowing Veciana, given the fact that Veciana was a prominent figure in the anti-Castro Cuban exile community, and that Phillips was deeply involved in anti-Castro activities.
* Veciana declined to identify Phillips as Bishop, although Veciana also said Phillips bore a physical resemblance to Bishop. Veciana also told a committee staffer that he wouldn't disclose that Phillips was Bishop even if he were. Based on the way Veciana acted when he said this, the staffer came away suspecting Veciana may have been trying to tell him Phillips was Bishop after all.
* The committee's report includes a footnote that says the committee suspected Veciana was falsely denying that Phillips was Bishop! In other words, the committee in effect said that it suspected Phillips may have been Bishop and that Veciana knew he was but would not say so!
* A former CIA case officer who was assigned from September 1960 to November 1962 to the JM/WAVE station in Miami told the HSCA that Phillips had in fact used the alias Maurice Bishop.
* A former CIA director and a former CIA agent told the HSCA that a man named Maurice Bishop had worked for the CIA.
* The Clinton-Jackson witnesses who reported seeing Oswald with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw were credible.
* Mafia boss Carlos Marcello was a plausible suspect for having been involved in the assassination conspiracy.
* Oswald associated with David Ferrie, an ultra-right-winger who was involved in the Carlos Marcello Mafia organization. (Very strange company for an alleged Marxist to be keeping.)
* Oswald had ties to the Marcello crime organization.
* The Mafia had the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy.
* In some Mafia hits, the Mafia hired a gunman through third parties to conceal their involvement and then had a Mafia man kill the gunman.
* Some anti-Castro Cubans may have been involved in the assassination conspiracy.
* Kennedy's autopsy was flawed and incomplete, and the autopsy doctors were not qualified or experienced enough to conduct a medical-legal autopsy involving gunshot wounds.
* There was a huge discrepancy between the autopsy doctors’ descriptions of the wounds and the wounds that the HSCA’s medical experts identified in the autopsy photos and x-rays. For example, according to the committee’s medical experts, the rear head entry wound was nearly 4 inches higher than where the autopsy doctors said it was in the autopsy report, even though the autopsy doctors had two good reference points from which to locate the wound (the hairline and the external occipital protuberance).
* The bullet that struck Kennedy in his back and allegedly exited his neck had a slightly upward trajectory. The HSCA medical experts even noted that the photos of the back wound showed the tissue inside the wound to be tunneled upward. (The committee's trajectory study ignored the pathology panel's placement of the back wound.)
* When the HSCA asked the autopsy doctors to explain why the autopsy report does not mention the 6.5 mm fragment that the committee’s medical experts identified in the autopsy skull x-rays, the doctors insisted that on the night of the autopsy they did not see the 6.5 mm fragment in the skull x-rays that they took. (Several medical doctors with training in radiology have examined the 6.5 mm fragment and determined that it is a fake image. The HSCA’s Larry SPersonivan has stated that the fragment must be an “artifact” on the x-rays, i.e., that it was not on the skull when the autopsy x-rays were taken.)
* The eyewitness reports of hearing shots from the grassy knoll are credible and cannot be dismissed as merely being the result of echoes.
* The HSCA was contacted by a former Dallas police officer who reported that right after the shots were fired, he saw a man who seemed to be "running away" in Dealey Plaza. He said the man ran to a car, threw something in the back of the car, and then took off at high speed. Tilson found this suspicious, followed the man’s car, and read the license plate number to his daughter, who was in the car with him:
In an interview in Dallas with HSCA investigators on August 26, 1978, Tom Tilson reported that he saw a man running from the plaza immediately after the shots. Tilson stated that on November 22, 1963, he was off duty from his job as a Dallas Police Department patrolman. At the time of the motorcade, he was driving east from Commerce Street and was approaching the triple underpass. He had already heard the report on his police radio that there had been a shooting at the motorcade and had seen the Presidential limousine travel at high speed from the underpass. As he was in the area of the triple underpass, Tilson saw a man "slipping and sliding" down the embankment on the north side of Elm Street west of the underpass. Tilson said the man appeared conspicuous because he was the only one running away from the plaza immediately after the shots. Tilson said that because of his speed, the man rammed against the side of a "dark" car which was parked there. Tilson said he then saw the man do something at the rear door portion of the car, like "throw something inside, then jump behind the wheel and take off very fast."
Tilson told the investigators that his 17 years of experiences as a policeman, combined with the radio broadcast of the shooting and this conspicuous man, caused him to "give chase" to the man speeding away from the direction of the plaza. He then saw the same "dark car" going south on Industrial Boulevard, and he followed it. As the car approached a toll road toward Ft. Worth, Tilson was within 100 feet and called out the license number, make, and model to his daughter, Dinah, who was riding with him. She wrote it down on a slip of paper. (12 HSCA 10-16)
* The WC failed to adequately investigate the possibility of conspiracy.
Here are links to the HSCA's report and to the HSCA hearings and exhibits:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/contents.htm
-
HSCA?
Really?
Resignation of Sprague was the beginning of the end.
Blakey was obsessed with organized crime, and ignored everything else, including CIA pulling the wool over his eyes.
Dictabelt was a wild goose chase, which also wasted a great deal of time and money.
Jack White's idiocy played right into the hands of the Committee's critics, who could then submit that the rifle in the backyard photographs was the same as the one in the National Archives. From a photograph. (?)
And more.
-
The HSCA Investigation: A Major Step Forward in the JFK Case?
Not at all. It was a major trip backwards on their butts actually---
Mr. FAUNTROY. So that--is it your testimony that you did not learn that somebody was concerned about the umbrella man until 10 or 15 years after, until 1978--only in 1978 were you aware?
Mr. WITT. Well, as far as I know, no one was concerned with me.
Mr. FAUNTROY. So that explains, therefore, why you did not yourself contact the FBI or the police--Dallas Police Department, because you did not--you were not aware that someone with an umbrella in Dealey Plaza was an object of interest?
Mr. WITT. No. As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware that I was an object of interest. As a matter of fact, I have found out since-- within the last few weeks, that there have been countless numbers of books and all sorts of controversies over this thing. But I drifted along all of these years and I have never seen one of these books because I have never been a fan of this assassination thing. I don't go out of my way to read anything about it. So it sort of all has gone over my head up until the last few weeks.
That went way over my head drifting along into the ozone.
The Umbrella man was among the closest 'witnesses' to JFK's death and this man says that he didn't "go out of [his] way to read anything about it"?
Here's the kicker....
Chairman STOKES. Mr. Witt, I would just like to say what is probably equally tragic with the event which occurred on that date has been the rumors and theories which have grown up around such a tragic event in our history...[blah blah]
I want to say that I think you have performed for the American people a real service today, by coming forth and dispelling another one of the rumors which have for now some 15 years caused great uneasiness in the American people. [more blah blah]
... you have been a very candid witness and one who has lent some degree of levity to our proceeding to give us some relief from this. I indeed applaud you for coming forth and giving us your testimony today.
If this Witt fellow was the Umbrella Man [and I doubt that he was]...Why did he not perform a real service for the American people by coming forward on Nov 22, 1963?
The HSCA Investigation: A Major Step Forward kick in the teeth in the JFK Case
-
HSCA?
Really?
Resignation of Sprague was the beginning of the end.
Blakey was obsessed with organized crime, and ignored everything else, including CIA pulling the wool over his eyes.
Dictabelt was a wild goose chase, which also wasted a great deal of time and money.
Jack White's idiocy played right into the hands of the Committee's critics, who could then submit that the rifle in the backyard photographs was the same as the one in the National Archives. From a photograph. (?)
And more.
I know this is the basic view that many conspiracy theorists have of the HSCA. And, yes, there were several issues on which the HSCA avoided the facts. But, the HSCA also developed a huge amount of new evidence. The HSCA conducted scores of important interviews that, once they were released in the 1990s and later, greatly increased our understanding of the medical evidence and the cover-up at the autopsy. Other HSCA interviews--again, when released in the 1990s and later--greatly furthered our grasp of the role of CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans and their handlers in the assassination conspiracy.
Plus, and I know this might seem like small consolation, but even when HSCA experts bent the facts to try to uphold the backyard rifle photos and the single-bullet theory, they inadvertently provided significant evidence against both. Look at the HSCA photographic evidence panel's attempt to authenticate the backyard rifle photos: they ended up providing powerful evidence against their own conclusion, and they put this evidence into the public record, such as the microscopic differences in the distances between background objects, the fact that the Penrose analysis found variations between the face of the backyard figure and Oswald's face in undisputed pictures of him (which should not have happened if the backyard figure's face was unaltered), the fact that McCamy was forced to admit that they couldn't duplicate the variant nose shadow without tilting the model's head to a position that was very different from the position of the backyard figure's head, the fact that they put on record that renowned British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson did not buy their explanation of the problematic chin, etc., etc.
Or, look at the HSCA forensic pathology panel's attempt to uphold the single-bullet theory and the claim that Kennedy's head was struck by the FMJ ammo supposedly used by Oswald. Their trajectory expert from NASA, Canning, simply ignored the FPP's finding that the bullet was traveling slightly upward when it hit Kennedy in the back because he couldn't get the SBT trajectory to line based on an honest analysis of Kennedy's position as seen in the Zapruder film. Canning also informed the committee that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet fragment from headshot. Canning later complained about how he was treated by some of the HSCA medical experts.
In addition, the FPP made the autopsy doctors look like total idiots: According to the FPP, the autopsy doctors mislocated the rear head entry wound by a staggering 4 inches, an unbelievable error, especially when there were two nearby fixed reference points to use to locate the wound. One of the HSCA medical experts, McDonnell, found a new bullet fragment on the x-rays--on the outer table of the skull and to the left of the mysterious 6.5 mm fragment--that obviously could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo Oswald allegedly used. The FPP essentially ignored this important discovery, but they did not suppress it. Two of the HSCA medical experts, McDonnell and Angel, identified missing frontal bone in the skull x-rays, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face. The HSCA could have suppressed this troubling, contrary evidence as well, but they did not--they left it in the record.
Similarly, the HSCA allowed Dr. Cyril Wecht to testify at length, and they also printed his devastating dissent to the single-bullet theory. The WC suppressed the fact that two of its members did not buy the single-bullet theory. We only learned about this years later. The HSCA, in most cases, was much more transparent.
So when it comes to the HSCA, I prefer to see the glass 65% full instead of 35% empty.
-
I know this is the basic view that many conspiracy theorists have of the HSCA. And, yes, there were several issues on which the HSCA avoided the facts. But, the HSCA also developed a huge amount of new evidence. The HSCA conducted scores of important interviews that, once they were released in the 1990s, greatly increased our understanding of the medical evidence and the cover-up at the autopsy. Other HSCA interviews--again, when released in 1990s and later--greatly furthered our grasp of the role of CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans and their handlers in the assassination conspiracy.
Plus, and I know this might seem like small consolation, but even when HSCA experts bent the facts to try to uphold the backyard rifle photos and the single-bullet theory, they inadvertently provided significant evidence against both. Look at the HSCA photographic evidence panel's attempt to authenticate the backyard rifle photos: they ended up providing powerful evidence against their own conclusion, and they put this evidence into the public record, such as the microscopic differences in the distances between background objects, the fact that the Penrose analysis found variations between the face of the backyard figure and Oswald's face in undisputed pictures of him (which should not have happened if the backyard figure's face was unaltered), the fact that McCamy was forced to admit that they couldn't duplicate the variant nose shadow without tilting the model's head to a position that was very different from the position of the backyard figure's head, the fact that they put on record that renowned British photographic expert Malcolm Thompson did not buy their explanation of the problematic chin, etc., etc.
Or, look at the HSCA forensic pathology panel's attempt to uphold the single-bullet theory and the claim that Kennedy's head was struck by the FMJ ammo supposedly used by Oswald. Their trajectory expert from NASA, Canning, simply ignored the FPP's finding that the bullet was traveling slightly upward when it hit Kennedy in the back because he couldn't get the SBT trajectory to line based on an honest analysis of Kennedy's position as seen in the Zapruder film. Canning also informed the committee that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet fragment from headshot. Canning later complained about how he was treated by some of the HSCA medical experts.
In addition, the FPP made the autopsy doctors look like total idiots: According to the FPP, the autopsy doctors mislocated the rear head entry wound by a staggering 4 inches, an unbelievable error, especially when there were two nearby fixed reference points to use to locate the wound. One of the HSCA medical experts, McDonnell, found a new bullet fragment on the x-rays--on the outer table of the skull and to the left of the mysterious 6.5 mm fragment--that obviously could not have been deposited by the kind of ammo Oswald allegedly used. The FPP essentially ignored this important discovery, but they did not suppress it. Two of the HSCA medical experts, McDonnell and Angel, identified missing frontal bone in the skull x-rays, damage that is nowhere to be seen in the autopsy photos that show Kennedy's face. The HSCA could have suppressed this troubling, contrary evidence as well, but they did not--they left it in the record.
Similarly, the HSCA allowed Dr. Cyril Wecht to testify at length, and they also printed his devastating dissent to the single-bullet theory. The WC suppressed the fact that two of its members did not buy the single-bullet theory. We only learned about this years later. The HSCA, in most cases, was much more transparent.
So when it comes to the HSCA, I prefer to see the glass 65% full instead of 35% empty.
Do you agree with the HSCA that Oswald fired 3 shots?
-
Do you agree with the HSCA that Oswald fired 3 shots?
That is all you have to say in response to the facts I presented?
Anyway, no, I do not agree with that conclusion (I don't think Oswald fired any shots). However, I agree with far more of the HSCA's conclusions than any lone-gunman theorist can. Although the HSCA said Oswald fired three of their four shots, the committee also said that someone was moving boxes around in the sniper's window within 2 minutes after the shooting (obviously, at a time when Oswald could not have been there), that there was a second gunman, that the second gunman fired from the grassy knoll, that the Warren Commission's rejection of all the eyewitness accounts of hearing shots from the knoll and of smelling gunpowder on the knoll was unjustified, etc., etc.
-
That is all you have to say in response to the facts I presented?
Anyway, no, I do not agree with that conclusion (I don't think Oswald fired any shots). However, I agree with far more of the HSCA's conclusions than any lone-gunman theorist can. Although the HSCA said Oswald fired three of their four shots, the committee also said that someone was moving boxes around in the sniper's window within 2 minutes after the shooting (obviously, at a time when Oswald could not have been there), that there was a second gunman, that the second gunman fired from the grassy knoll, that the Warren Commission's rejection of all the eyewitness accounts of hearing shots from the knoll and of smelling gunpowder on the knoll was unjustified, etc., etc.
The HSCA also conclude this:
The HSCA :
“The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
Acoustical Analysis Study:
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
The Warren Commission conclusion:
The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired. Warren Commission Report pages 110-111
You wrote this article but you don't believe it when numerous eyewitnesses state there was only two shots ?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/dent.htm
The important part of this article is all about the fact that only two shells exhibit the chambering mark noted by Hoover and Josiah Thompson, and also CE 543 has three marks on the head of the case indicating it was dry fired. The fact that dryfiring the rifle with CE 543 in the chamber did not produce the chambering mark indicates the expansion of the chamber is required to produce the indentation or chambering mark. The reason the unfired round (CE141) exhibited the chambering mark is due to the chamber's expansion from the firing of CE 544, and CE 545. You can tell CE 545 was fired first because the indentation on CE 544 is more pronounced. The rifle could be examined tomorrow and determined if there is an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle producing the indentation. Given over 30 shells were noted by Thompson with the chambering mark it is a given the anomaly is still present. Anthony Marsh brought up a good point, If the anomaly in the chamber was due to the reamer then there could be other carcanos manufactured at the same time with the same defect.
Maybe the real question is what do you believe? It is hard to advocate a conspiracy with the knowledge there was only two shots.
-
I know this is the basic view that many conspiracy theorists have of the HSCA.
I am not a " conspiracy theorist".
I am a skeptic.
( And I am very skeptical, when it comes to the Warren Report. And the HCSA. And any and all conspiracy theories. "Just the facts, ma'am."
-
The HSCA also conclude this:
The HSCA :
“The committee believed that the witnesses memories and
testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concern
ing the events of November 22 1963" HSCA Final Report- pg 87
Acoustical Analysis Study:
"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137
We could play this game all day. For every one HSCA statement that you can cite for the lone-gunman position, I can cite two or three that support the conspiracy position, from Oswald's links to Ferrie and Shaw, to the moving of boxes in the sixth-floor window at a time when Oswald could not have been there, to the smell of gunpowder on the knoll, to Ruby's Mafia ties, to how Ruby entered the basement, to the DPD's pulling of security from the area where Ruby entered the basement shortly before he arrived, to the acoustical evidence of at least 4 shots, to the timing of the first hit on JFK, to the utter discrediting of the autopsy doctors, to the discovery of the fragment on the outer table of the skull to the left of the 6.5 mm fragment image, to Canning's rejection of the FPP's trajectory, etc., etc., etc.
You wrote this article but you don't believe it when numerous eyewitnesses state there was only two shots? https://miketgriffith.com/files/dent.htm
No, because the DPD dictabelt contains at least 4 gunshot impulses, because the Zapruder film shows reactions to at least 6 shots, because we've known for decades that the FBI and the DPD severely misrepresented what many witnesses told them, because some of the shots were fired almost simultaneously and could have sounded like one shot, and because some of the witnesses who were close to a firing point could only hear shots from that point (e.g., the guys beneath the sniper's nest), to name a few reasons.
The important part of this article is all about the fact that only two shells exhibit the chambering mark noted by Hoover and Josiah Thompson, and also CE 543 has three marks on the head of the case indicating it was dry fired. The fact that dryfiring the rifle with CE 543 in the chamber did not produce the chambering mark indicates the expansion of the chamber is required to produce the indentation or chambering mark. The reason the unfired round (CE141) exhibited the chambering mark is due to the chamber's expansion from the firing of CE 544, and CE 545. You can tell CE 545 was fired first because the indentation on CE 544 is more pronounced. The rifle could be examined tomorrow and determined if there is an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle producing the indentation. Given over 30 shells were noted by Thompson with the chambering mark it is a given the anomaly is still present. Anthony Marsh brought up a good point, If the anomaly in the chamber was due to the reamer then there could be other carcanos manufactured at the same time with the same defect.
You missed the evidence in my article. CE 543 could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. How could the two other shells have a chambering impression on their side but CE 543 not have one? How could even the live round that remained in the rifle’s chamber have this chambering mark on its side but CE 543 not have it? Answer: CE 543 was not fired from the alleged murder weapon on the day of the shooting. If it had been fired that day, it would have an impression from the rifle's chamber on its side, but it does not. And only the last shell in the clip gets marked by the magazine follower, and we know CE 543 was not the last cartridge in the clip because the rifle was found with a live round in the chamber, so whenever CE 543 got marked by the magazine follower, it could not have been during the shooting.
Maybe the real question is what do you believe? It is hard to advocate a conspiracy with the knowledge there was only two shots.
Six or seven shots were fired.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/extrabullets.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm
Impulses from at least four of them are on the DPD dictabelt:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Thomas.pdf
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=7&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4277#relPageId=29
Dr. G. Paul Chambers' 21-page analysis of the acoustical evidence in Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (chapter 6) (Dr. Chambers also responds to the NRC arguments against the acoustical evidence.)
There was a bullet hole in the windshield--several witnesses got a very good look at it:
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/04-2-bullet-hole/
-
the moving of boxes in the sixth-floor window at a time when Oswald could not have been there,
No boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq0SyJJV/Powell-dillard-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8csr9Pxx/powel-dillard.gif)
There was a bullet hole in the windshield--several witnesses got a very good look at it:
Allowing for the perspective change, the start of the crack on the windscreen captured in Altgens7 which was displayed in numerous newspapers the same day shows the same chipped location and radiating crack as officially captured in the early hours of the following day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXXXRLV6/altgens7-crack-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfWRKGgk/Altgens7-12-55.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpZcZpr82W0/VGrAN_c0nfI/AAAAAAAAVVw/3GHRCXjHvGU/s1600/Oklahoma-CityTimes-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
-
No boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq0SyJJV/Powell-dillard-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8csr9Pxx/powel-dillard.gif)
Allowing for the perspective change, the start of the crack on the windscreen captured in Altgens7 which was displayed in numerous newspapers the same day shows the same chipped location and radiating crack as officially captured in the early hours of the following day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXXXRLV6/altgens7-crack-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfWRKGgk/Altgens7-12-55.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpZcZpr82W0/VGrAN_c0nfI/AAAAAAAAVVw/3GHRCXjHvGU/s1600/Oklahoma-CityTimes-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
John,
Is it fair to say, then, that it was a crack (probably caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot), and not a through-and-through hole?
(Great graphics, btw.)
-- MWT ;)
-
John,
Is it fair to say it was just a crack, not a through-and-through hole?
(Great graphics, btw.)
-- MWT ;)
Hi Thomas, in the official photo I don't see a through-and-through hole and according to the evidence it was just a slight divot and iirc contained particles of copper or lead?
JohnM
-
John,
(Great graphics, btw.)
Yup. He is the master at it. DiEugenio thinks that he's with the CIA. :D
-
DiEugenio thinks that he's with the CIA. :D
Yeah I wish, it would be great to be paid but the satisfaction of a successful refutation is reward in itself.
JohnM
-
Yeah I wish, it would be great to be paid but the satisfaction of a successful refutation is reward in itself.
JohnM
I use your graphics a lot. Here and elsewhere.
-
Yup. He is the master at it. DiEugenio thinks that he's with the CIA. :D
You mean James "I Never Met A Communist I Didn't Adore" DiEugenio at the Eeek A Freak Forum?
THAT James DiEugenio?
-- MWT ;)
-
No boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq0SyJJV/Powell-dillard-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8csr9Pxx/powel-dillard.gif)
Allowing for the perspective change, the start of the crack on the windscreen captured in Altgens7 which was displayed in numerous newspapers the same day shows the same chipped location and radiating crack as officially captured in the early hours of the following day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXXXRLV6/altgens7-crack-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfWRKGgk/Altgens7-12-55.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpZcZpr82W0/VGrAN_c0nfI/AAAAAAAAVVw/3GHRCXjHvGU/s1600/Oklahoma-CityTimes-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
What sort of weirdness have you inserted in the window?
And what does it prove?
Besides absolutely nothing?
-
We could play this game all day. For every one HSCA statement that you can cite for the lone-gunman position, I can cite two or three that support the conspiracy position, from Oswald's links to Ferrie and Shaw, to the moving of boxes in the sixth-floor window at a time when Oswald could not have been there, to the smell of gunpowder on the knoll, to Ruby's Mafia ties, to how Ruby entered the basement, to the DPD's pulling of security from the area where Ruby entered the basement shortly before he arrived, to the acoustical evidence of at least 4 shots, to the timing of the first hit on JFK, to the utter discrediting of the autopsy doctors, to the discovery of the fragment on the outer table of the skull to the left of the 6.5 mm fragment image, to Canning's rejection of the FPP's trajectory, etc., etc., etc.
No, because the DPD dictabelt contains at least 4 gunshot impulses, because the Zapruder film shows reactions to at least 6 shots, because we've known for decades that the FBI and the DPD severely misrepresented what many witnesses told them, because some of the shots were fired almost simultaneously and could have sounded like one shot, and because some of the witnesses who were close to a firing point could only hear shots from that point (e.g., the guys beneath the sniper's nest), to name a few reasons.
You missed the evidence in my article. CE 543 could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. How could the two other shells have a chambering impression on their side but CE 543 not have one? How could even the live round that remained in the rifle’s chamber have this chambering mark on its side but CE 543 not have it? Answer: CE 543 was not fired from the alleged murder weapon on the day of the shooting. If it had been fired that day, it would have an impression from the rifle's chamber on its side, but it does not. And only the last shell in the clip gets marked by the magazine follower, and we know CE 543 was not the last cartridge in the clip because the rifle was found with a live round in the chamber, so whenever CE 543 got marked by the magazine follower, it could not have been during the shooting.
Six or seven shots were fired.
https://miketgriffith.com/files/extrabullets.htm
https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm
Impulses from at least four of them are on the DPD dictabelt:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Thomas.pdf
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=7&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4277#relPageId=29
Dr. G. Paul Chambers' 21-page analysis of the acoustical evidence in Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (chapter 6) (Dr. Chambers also responds to the NRC arguments against the acoustical evidence.)
There was a bullet hole in the windshield--several witnesses got a very good look at it:
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/04-2-bullet-hole/
"We could play this game all day"----Michael Griffith
No, the discussion about the actual mechanics of the assassination is very simple and the rest of what was listed are old debunked theories. I am not sure but are you actually stating he was struck by more than two bullets with the witnesses unable to hear some of the shots? Multiple shooters all armed with carcanos? Zapruder stated there was only two shots and so did Louis Alveraz and Dr Hartmann who independently studied Zapruder's reactions based on Jiggle Analysis.
Mr. ZAPRUDER - I thought I heard two, it could be three, because to my estimation I thought he was hit on the second--I really don't know. The whole thing that has been transpiring--it was very upsetting and as you see I got a little better all the time and this came up again and it to me looked like the second shot, but I don't know. I never even heard a third shot.
------------------------------
This is definitely enlightening, in the expose' on the dented shell it was firmly stated there was just two shots from the Snipers Nest. Basically it listed four reasons why it was not possible CE 543 was actually fired that day. The dented lip and the follower marks have been arguable for a long time, but the indentation referred to as a "chambering mark" and the marks on the base of the shell, from the shell having been used as a snap cap and dry fired, are solid evidence. The "chambering mark" on CE 141 clearly indicates an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle causing the "chambering mark" or indentation.
Michael Griffith-- Dented Shell:
"How could the two other shells have a chambering impression on their side but CE 543 not have one? How could even the live round that remained in the rifle’s chamber have this chambering mark on its side but CE 543 not have it? The explanation seems obvious: CE 543 was not fired from the alleged murder weapon on the day of the shooting."
You are correct in your assessment of only two shots being fired by the Sniper. Numerous eyewitnesses all stated there was just two shots. BR Williams stated there was two shots from above him as did Jarman who stated after the second shot the Limousine sped away. Howard Brennan saw the Sniper fire the second of two shots. On and On and On the eyewitnesses relate a two shot assassination.
Realistically there was really only time for two shots and what little evidence that was recovered was a bullet and fragments from another bullet, both having been matched to the rifle discovered on the 6th floor and to the exclusion of all other rifles.
SBT? The wound to Gov Connally's back can only be explained by the bullet first passing through JFK. If there is a conspiracy of any kind in this simple 5+ second act, by all means pursue it. Maybe it is time to evaluate the available hard evidence and determine the real value of all the hearsay in assessing the assassination.
How there could have been another assassin is beyond reasoning. The trajectory of the two shots are known to have been from behind JFK. To assume there was another assassin that individual also would have to have been armed with a carcano and standing beside LHO or simply completely missed everyone and everything.
What you choose to do with the shell information is your business but you should also know the WC reached a similar conclusion and stated it in their final analysis:
WC conclusion pages 110-111
It is possible that the assassin carried an
empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses
hearing multiple noises made by the same shot. Soon after the three
empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three
shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the
press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by
the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired.
-
What sort of weirdness have you inserted in the window?
And what does it prove?
Besides absolutely nothing?
Huh? Can you elaborate on what the heck you're trying to say because as usual your erratic ramblings are impossible to decipher??
JohnM
-
John, Is it fair to say, then, that it was a crack (probably caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot), and not a through-and-through hole? (Great graphics, btw.) -- MWT ;)
No, it was not a crack: it was a hole. Several witnesses got a very good look at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8)
Plus, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning from NASA, observed that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by fragments from the head shot.
And then there is the neat, round deep dent in the top of the windshield chrome.
In 2017, documentation was discovered that revealed that an extra bullet was found in JFK’s limousine by two Navy petty officers on the night of the assassination after the limousine was back in DC that night. At the request of Dr. Humes, they searched the limo for any extra bullets, bullet fragments, or skull fragments. The petty officer who found the bullet confirmed the account, and Dr. James Young, a Navy doctor who attended the autopsy, has confirmed that he received the bullet from the petty officer. The bullet disappeared after it was given to Dr. Humes--surprise, surprise.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/ (https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/)
-
No, it was not a crack: it was a hole. Several witnesses got a very good look at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFoPCKVp-8)
Plus, the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning from NASA, observed that the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by fragments from the head shot.
And then there is the neat, round deep dent in the top of the windshield chrome.
In 2017, documentation was discovered that revealed that an extra bullet was found in JFK’s limousine by two Navy petty officers on the night of the assassination after the limousine was back in DC that night. At the request of Dr. Humes, they searched the limo for any extra bullets, bullet fragments, or skull fragments. The petty officer who found the bullet confirmed the account, and Dr. James Young, a Navy doctor who attended the autopsy, has confirmed that he received the bullet from the petty officer. The bullet disappeared after it was given to Dr. Humes--surprise, surprise.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/ (https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/)
Why do you ignore the irrefutable evidence that the exact same start of the crack in the windscreen was captured by Altgens and was in precisely the same spot as was captured in the official photo which shows absolutely no through-and-through hole? And even if in some alternate universe there was a hole, you do realize that the "hole" could equally happen from the front or the rear?
Btw why would the conspirators even remotely consider the extremely stupid idea of having a sniper in front when the guy you are setting up was behind? Doh!
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXXXRLV6/altgens7-crack-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfWRKGgk/Altgens7-12-55.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpZcZpr82W0/VGrAN_c0nfI/AAAAAAAAVVw/3GHRCXjHvGU/s1600/Oklahoma-CityTimes-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
-
No boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq0SyJJV/Powell-dillard-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8csr9Pxx/powel-dillard.gif)
Allowing for the perspective change, the start of the crack on the windscreen captured in Altgens7 which was displayed in numerous newspapers the same day shows the same chipped location and radiating crack as officially captured in the early hours of the following day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXXXRLV6/altgens7-crack-gif.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfWRKGgk/Altgens7-12-55.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gpZcZpr82W0/VGrAN_c0nfI/AAAAAAAAVVw/3GHRCXjHvGU/s1600/Oklahoma-CityTimes-11-22-63.jpg)
JohnM
You have taken an existing photograph, or a frame from a moving photograph, of the depository, and used some software that creates what, exactly? Imaginary images. Ok.
-
You have taken an existing photograph, or a frame from a moving photograph, of the depository, and used some software that creates what, exactly? Imaginary images. Ok.
Yeah, that’s what “Mytton” does.
-
No boxes were moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pq0SyJJV/Powell-dillard-boxes.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8csr9Pxx/powel-dillard.gif)
JohnM
'No boxes were moved'
I get the perspective change thing, but I thought the moved/not moved boxes thing was about the boxes right at the window. Yet your gif appears to show the wall of boxes behind the immediate cuckoo nest, and only the tip of a top window box.
:(
-
'No boxes were moved'
I get the perspective change thing, but I thought the moved/not moved boxes thing was about the boxes right at the window. Yet your gif appears to show the wall of boxes behind the immediate cuckoo nest, and only the tip of a top window box.
:(
Mr Mytton would get along well with Dale Myers.
As they say on the streets, " Game recognize game".
-
While today we know the boxes in question to be a few feet from the window, with some receiving sunlight through the window, the HSCA Photographic Panel in 1977 thought the boxes sat "close to the plane of the window") in order to receive sunlight, and that they weren't being lit though the window because the boxes supposedly had no lattice shadows.
"Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were unknown,
it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room that would have
been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two the left and right of the
window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by the frame
of the partially opened window. In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full
sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window frame."
With 3D and John's animation, we can demonstrate that the box seen in the open window area of the Dillard photo is the high box seen in Powell.
(https://i.ibb.co/y4sjtkd/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Not perfect but gives the idea.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsSGM8Nj/powell-dillard.jpg)
Nice 3D work Jerry which perfectly reinforces my GIF and it's nice to have someone else around here who understands image analysis, because laymen like Tonkovich, Griffith and Iacoletti who make silly illogical amateur observations only succeed in embarrassing themselves.
JohnM
-
Mr Mytton would get along well with Dale Myers.
As they say on the streets, " Game recognize game".
Mr Mytton would get along well with Dale Myers.
Agreed. Good call. So would Jerry Organ and myself.
-
While today we know the boxes in question to be a few feet from the window, with some receiving sunlight through the window, the HSCA Photographic Panel in 1977 thought the boxes sat "close to the plane of the window") in order to receive sunlight, and that they weren't being lit though the window because the boxes supposedly had no lattice shadows.
"Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the photographs were unknown,
it was not possible to calculate precisely the region within the sixth floor room that would have
been visible to each photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two the left and right of the
window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no shadows cast on them by the frame
of the partially opened window. In the Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full
sunlight, with no shadow cast on them by the window frame."
With 3D and John's animation, we can demonstrate that the box seen in the open window area of the Dillard photo is the high box seen in Powell.
(https://i.ibb.co/y4sjtkd/dillard-powell-dissolve.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Not perfect but gives the idea.
Understood
-
Mr Mytton would get along well with Dale Myers.
As they say on the streets, " Game recognize game".
Thumb1:
They’re both graphical con artists. At least Myers doesn’t hide behind a false identity.
-
Mr Mytton would get along well with Dale Myers.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
You got that right and we'd talk about his awesome 3D recreation of the Single Bullet Fact and I'd really enjoy discussing his in depth analysis of his book "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit", where Dale proved beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Tippit!
https://www.jfkfiles.com/
https://www.amazon.com.au/Malice-Harvey-Oswald-Murder-Officer-ebook/dp/B00GDTYR3S
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsSGM8Nj/powell-dillard.jpg)
Nice 3D work Jerry which perfectly reinforces my GIF and it's nice to have someone else around here who understands image analysis, because laymen like Tonkovich, Griffith and Iacoletti who make silly illogical amateur observations only succeed in embarrassing themselves.
JohnM
Are you an expert in photographic analysis?
Please inform us re: your credentials?
Thx.
-
Weren't silencers used by "hit men" of that generation?
-
To understand the HSCA, you must understand that the HSCA consisted of several panels and teams, such as one panel for the medical evidence, one panel for the photographic evidence, one panel for the firearms evidence, a team for the Oswald-Mexico City evidence, a team for the organized crime evidence, etc., etc.
The forensic pathology panel was a sad joke
The photographic evidence panel was not much better, although the PEP did acknowledge the photographic evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window less than two minutes after the shooting--obviously, this could not have been Oswald.
The organized crime team did a great job, absolutely outstanding work. They destroyed the WC's portrait of Jack Ruby and the commission's myths about Ruby's shooting of Oswald.
The Oswald-Mexico City team did a fantastic job. They found clear evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City.
The HSCA's review of Jack Ruby's polygraph was crucial because it showed the the FBI examiner rigged to help Ruby to avoid failing the test but that even then the test contained indications that Ruby lied.
The HSCA's acoustical guys were superb and discovered scientific evidence that at least four shots were fired during the assassination.
In most cases, the panel chairman/team lead greatly influenced how well the panel/team did. Baden was a train wreck as FPP chairman.
-
To understand the HSCA, you must understand that the HSCA consisted of several panels and teams, such as one panel for the medical evidence, one panel for the photographic evidence, one panel for the firearms evidence, a team for the Oswald-Mexico City evidence, a team for the organized crime evidence, etc., etc.
The forensic pathology panel was a sad joke
The photographic evidence panel was not much better, although the PEP did acknowledge the photographic evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window less than two minutes after the shooting--obviously, this could not have been Oswald.
The organized crime team did a great job, absolutely outstanding work. They destroyed the WC's portrait of Jack Ruby and the commission's myths about Ruby's shooting of Oswald.
The Oswald-Mexico City team did a fantastic job. They found clear evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City.
The HSCA's review of Jack Ruby's polygraph was crucial because it showed the the FBI examiner rigged to help Ruby to avoid failing the test but that even then the test contained indications that Ruby lied.
The HSCA's acoustical guys were superb and discovered scientific evidence that at least four shots were fired during the assassination.
In most cases, the panel chairman/team lead greatly influenced how well the panel/team did. Baden was a train wreck as FPP chairman.
Well, considering Blakey wrote the RICO statute in 1970, you are surprised he focused on organized crime in his conclusions, and blindly trusted the CIA? You are aware Blakey admits Joannides lied to him,and obstructed justice?
-
Well, considering Blakey wrote the RICO statute in 1970, you are surprised he focused on organized crime in his conclusions, and blindly trusted the CIA? You are aware Blakey admits Joannides lied to him, and obstructed justice?
The more I have studied the HSCA, the more I have come to view Blakey in a more positive light. Blakey did many things that I still find inexcusable. Yet, Blakey let Ed Lopez and Don Hardway conduct a no-holes-barred investigation into Oswald's visit to Mexico City, and they uncovered compelling evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald there.
When Blakey heard back from BBN that the DPD dictabelt had at least four gunshot impulses on it, he ordered follow-up research, and then forced a massive rewrite of the HSCA report when Weiss and Aschkenasy confirmed BBN's findings.
Blakey gathered up the nerve to acknowledge that Silvia Odio's account was solid, and he ensured that the HSCA report contained an excellent section on her story, whereas the WC dismissed her account, saying it was "almost certain" that Odio was wrong.
Some of the HSCA skullduggery that critics attack was most likely done without Blakey's knowledge or consent, such as the HSCA FPP's misrepresentation of the testimony of the autopsy witnesses regarding the large head wound as being in agreement with the autopsy report and in disagreement with the Dallas testimony, when in fact we learned when the ARRB released most of the sealed HSCA files that nearly everyone at the autopsy said the large wound was in the back of the head, just as the Dallas doctors and nurses said it was.
-
The more I have studied the HSCA, the more I have come to view Blakey in a more positive light. Blakey did many things that I still find inexcusable. Yet, Blakey let Ed Lopez and Don Hardway conduct a no-holes-barred investigation into Oswald's visit to Mexico City, and they uncovered compelling evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald there.
When Blakey heard back from BBN that the DPD dictabelt had at least four gunshot impulses on it, he ordered follow-up research, and then forced a massive rewrite of the HSCA report when Weiss and Aschkenasy confirmed BBN's findings.
Blakey gathered up the nerve to acknowledge that Silvia Odio's account was solid, and he ensured that the HSCA report contained an excellent section on her story, whereas the WC dismissed her account, saying it was "almost certain" that Odio was wrong.
Some of the HSCA skullduggery that critics attack was most likely done without Blakey's knowledge or consent, such as the HSCA FPP's misrepresentation of the testimony of the autopsy witnesses regarding the large head wound as being in agreement with the autopsy report and in disagreement with the Dallas testimony, when in fact we learned when the ARRB released most of the sealed HSCA files that nearly everyone at the autopsy said the large wound was in the back of the head, just as the Dallas doctors and nurses said it was.
Joannides. Fail.
-
"* Mafia boss Carlos Marcello was a plausible suspect for having been involved in the assassination conspiracy.
* Oswald associated with David Ferrie, an ultra-right-winger who was involved in the Carlos Marcello Mafia organization. (Very strange company for an alleged Marxist to be keeping.)
* Oswald had ties to the Marcello crime organization.
* The Mafia had the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy.
* In some Mafia hits, the Mafia hired a gunman through third parties to conceal their involvement and then had a Mafia man kill the gunman."
Has anyone discussed the motive the mafia would have for killing JFK?
-
When Robert Blakey allowed the HSCA's final report to say that Mafia elements and some anti-Castro Cubans may have been involved in the assassination conspiracy, he was coming dangerously close to the truth, since the anti-Castro Cubans were funded and directed by the CIA, and since the CIA used Mafia men for some domestic operations.
Blakey also allowed the final report to state that the CIA and elements of the military withheld information from and misled the Warren Commission.
For all of Blakey's sins (and there were many), he should be given due credit for allowing these two key conclusions to appear in the committee's final report.
-
When Robert Blakey allowed the HSCA's final report to say that Mafia elements and some anti-Castro Cubans may have been involved in the assassination ... he should be given due credit for allowing these two key conclusions to appear in the committee's final report.
As it did nothing to sway the perception of the general public... any credit [though merited] is therefor moot.
-
When Robert Blakey allowed the HSCA's final report to say that Mafia elements and some anti-Castro Cubans may have been involved in the assassination conspiracy, he was coming dangerously close to the truth, since the anti-Castro Cubans were funded and directed by the CIA, and since the CIA used Mafia men for some domestic operations.
Blakey also allowed the final report to state that the CIA and elements of the military withheld information from and misled the Warren Commission.
For all of Blakey's sins (and there were many), he should be given due credit for allowing these two key conclusions to appear in the committee's final report.
The problem with the HSCA report is that is says there was probably a conspiracy but couldn't give the actual evidence of it or say who was involved with Oswald (as they did say that Oswald had fired three shots from behind).
You can't say there was a conspiracy and then not say who or what the conspiracy was. That doesn't make any sense.
-
The problem with the HSCA report is that is says there was probably a conspiracy but couldn't give the actual evidence of it or say who was involved with Oswald (as they did say that Oswald had fired three shots from behind).
No, they did provide evidence, quite a bit of evidence: the DPD dictabelt, the post-assassination box movement in the sniper's nest, Ruby's Mafia ties, Ruby's route to entering the DPD basement, the parallels between Oswald's execution by Ruby and the Mafia's execution of hired gunmen, the witness accounts of hearing shots from the grassy knoll, relevant anti-Castro Cuban activity, etc., etc.
You can't say there was a conspiracy and then not say who or what the conspiracy was. That doesn't make any sense.
But that's not what they said. Even the final report clearly identified Mafia elements and anti-Castro Cuban elements as plausible suspects. But Blakey and other HSCA personnel noted that the committee had reached the end of its lifespan and thus could not continue its investigation. A key factor was that the acoustical evidence was only firmly developed toward the end of the committee's lifespan.
-
Yes they made a major step forward but they could not come out with the “whole truth” and that is that Carlos Marcello and Carlos Trafficante conspired together to kill JFK. This in conjunction with Hickey accidentally firing the, or one of the head shots that killed JFK.
Marcello and Trafficante both admitted that they did it. Marcello made insinuations, found in the book "Mafia Kingfish" and another book?? That he did it and while in prison he admitted it to his cell mate who was an FBI plant that “they” did it. Trafficante admitted to his lawyer Frank Ragano while in a car with him. That is in Ragano’s book "Mob Lawyer". Trafficante admitted it just before he passed away.
There was also another time that Trafficante told someone that JFK was going to be hit.
-
Yes they made a major step forward but they could not come out with the “whole truth” and that is that Carlos Marcello and Carlos Trafficante conspired together to kill JFK. This in conjunction with Hickey accidentally firing the, or one of the head shots that killed JFK.
Marcello and Trafficante both admitted that they did it. Marcello made insinuations, found in the book "Mafia Kingfish" and another book?? That he did it and while in prison he admitted it to his cell mate who was an FBI plant that “they” did it. Trafficante admitted to his lawyer Frank Ragano while in a car with him. That is in Ragano’s book "Mob Lawyer". Trafficante admitted it just before he passed away.
There was also another time that Trafficante told someone that JFK was going to be hit.
As you know, we don't agree on the Hickey shot, but I totally agree that elements of the Mafia were involved.
I concur that John Davis's book Mafia Kingfish is a great book. An even better book on the Mafia angle, perhaps the best book on the subject, is Dr. David Scheim's book The Mafia Killed President Kennedy (previously titled Contract on America).
Believe it or not, another good book on the Mafia angle is Robert Blakey and Richard Billings' book Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.
-
It's Santo Trafficante.
-
That is all you have to say in response to the facts I presented?
Anyway, no, I do not agree with that conclusion (I don't think Oswald fired any shots). However, I agree with far more of the HSCA's conclusions than any lone-gunman theorist can. Although the HSCA said Oswald fired three of their four shots, the committee also said that someone was moving boxes around in the sniper's window within 2 minutes after the shooting (obviously, at a time when Oswald could not have been there), that there was a second gunman, that the second gunman fired from the grassy knoll, that the Warren Commission's rejection of all the eyewitness accounts of hearing shots from the knoll and of smelling gunpowder on the knoll was unjustified, etc., etc.
someone was moving boxes around in the sniper's window within 2 minutes after the shooting
This is utter BS!..... The reason the HSCA concluded that someone was moving boxes is because the FBI jumbled the chronology of the variuos photos of the face of the TSBD. They claimed that James Powell took his photo AFTER Tom Dillard had taken photos and the boxes were arranged differently when comparing the photos. In reality Powell too his photo first and it was supposed to show a gunman ( LHO) firing a rifle out of the window. When the person behind that window hastily with drew the rifle he bumped the window sill box and thus it was positioned differently when Tom Dillard took his photos a couple of minutes after Powell had taken his photo.
-
Yes they made a major step forward but they could not come out with the “whole truth” and that is that Carlos Marcello and Carlos Trafficante conspired together to kill JFK. This in conjunction with Hickey accidentally firing the, or one of the head shots that killed JFK.
I think the fatal flaw of the Hickey shot theory is that it requires the cowlick site for the rear head entry wound, but that site has now been debunked. Donahue admitted that his proposed Hickey shot was impossible with the EOP entry site.
-
Well I have seen plenty of evidence that says the shot in the back of the head was several inches higher than the EOP. Also if I am not mistaken I saw a picture of the back part of the skull with a fragment spray fanning outwards. A FMJ round will not do that. Also we must explain the dozen or so folks that smelled gunpowder in the motorcade. Not to mention the coverup..........
-
someone was moving boxes around in the sniper's window within 2 minutes after the shooting
This is utter BS!..... The reason the HSCA concluded that someone was moving boxes is because the FBI jumbled the chronology of the variuos photos of the face of the TSBD. They claimed that James Powell took his photo AFTER Tom Dillard had taken photos and the boxes were arranged differently when comparing the photos. In reality Powell too his photo first and it was supposed to show a gunman ( LHO) firing a rifle out of the window. When the person behind that window hastily with drew the rifle he bumped the window sill box and thus it was positioned differently when Tom Dillard took his photos a couple of minutes after Powell had taken his photo.
Walt Fabrication #23. By the way, where have you been, Walt?
-
As you know, we don't agree on the Hickey shot, but I totally agree that elements of the Mafia were involved.
I concur that John Davis's book Mafia Kingfish is a great book. An even better book on the Mafia angle, perhaps the best book on the subject, is Dr. David Scheim's book The Mafia Killed President Kennedy (previously titled Contract on America).
Believe it or not, another good book on the Mafia angle is Robert Blakey and Richard Billings' book Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.
There seems to be no conspiracy you lot don't like.
-
There is no change in the box on the window sill and the boxes in the background during the interval between the taking of the Dillard and Powell photographs. The two photographs merely captured differing line-of-sights to the same objects.
Are you saying that the HSCA photo panel didn't know what they were doing?
Thumb1: