JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on October 15, 2026, 06:01:51 PM
-
Most WC critics, aka conspiracy theorists, have overlooked the full implications of the FBI's revealing and damning 1/20/1964 "visual aids brochure" (Commission Document 298) that was submitted as a visual aid supplement for its 99-page 1/13/1964 report on the assassination (Commission Document 107). Harold Weisberg zeroed in on CD 298 because it says JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. It says JFK was hit with the first of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots, Connally with the second shot, and JFK with the third shot.
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy before they were removed in the final/altered version of the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. Given the known problems with the autopsy report, starting with the fact that it was substantially altered by Dr. Humes to remove key information, that excuse falls flat from the outset.
Moreover, the 1/13/1964 report it cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, which includes the main original findings of the autopsy before the autopsy report was altered to conceal those findings. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the important original autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy not given in the final/altered autopsy report.
Plus, when the conflict between the FBI's version of the shooting (JFK and Connally hit by separate non-fatal bullets) and the Warren Commission's version of the shooting (the single-bullet theory) became known in 1966, Hoover defended the FBI's version.
What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:
"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)
What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.
You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.
The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.
The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.
Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder fim as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.
The 1/13/1964 FBI report notes the following facts:
-- "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (p. 2).
-- "The bag [the paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest] was examined for any evidence of the outline of a rifle but no significant indentations were found" (p. 5).
-- Two women who rode on the Red Arrow bus with Oswald on the way to Mexico City, Patricia Winston and Pamela Mumford, said he recommended they stay at the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City because he said "he had stayed there several times and had found it inexpensive. (p. 49).
The FBI confirmed there was indeed a Hotel Cuba in Mexico City, but the hotel's records did not show that anyone by the name of Oswald had stayed there (p. 49). So how did Oswald know about the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City? Just an amazingly lucky guess?
-- Mrs. Alexandra Taylor, who "became friendly with Oswald's wife," described Oswald as "bright" and as someone "who could argue logically and persuasively, and who was positive in his ideas and strong in his convictions." She said "she found it hard to believe he would want to kill President Kennedy" (p. 29).
-
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report cites the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the doubtful excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. That excuse cannot be floated for the 1/13/1964 report, because it specifically cites the autopsy report.
That is FALSE. The 1/13/1964 report cites "the medical examination of the body", not the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*. It's actually still relying on the Sibert and O'Neill FD-302 of Nov 26, 1963.
-
That is FALSE. The 1/13/1964 report cites "the medical examination of the body", not the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*. It's actually still relying on the Sibert and O'Neill FD-302 of Nov 26, 1963.
Oh, boy! Ok, yes, and Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy discusses every single important finding of the autopsy report before Humes markedly altered it and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 report had the benefit of all the important original autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
And let's remember that when the FBI's rejection of the SBT became known in 1966, Hoover defended the FBI's version of the shooting.
I've edited my OP to reflect this information.
Are you going to address any of the key information in the OP, or just be satisfied with your nit-picky minor correction that ignores the main point that the 1/13/1964 report had the benefit of all the main findings of the autopsy report?
-
Oh, boy! Ok, yes, and Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy discusses every single finding of the autopsy report and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 report had the benefit of all the autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.
"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length"
That cannot be found in the autopsy report. It comes from the flawed Sibert and O'Neill report. The 1/13/1964 report does NOT cite the autopsy report signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finc*.
On a side note, three days ago you said this in responding to a reply of mine:
Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right?
You realize that Sibert and O'Neill's FD-302 wasn't typed until 11/26/63, right?
-
Most WC critics, aka conspiracy theorists, have overlooked the full implications of the FBI's revealing and damning 1/20/1964 "visual aids brochure" (Commission Document 298) that was submitted as a visual aid supplement for its 99-page 1/13/1964 report on the assassination (Commission Document 107). Harold Weisberg zeroed in on CD 298 because it says JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. It says JFK was hit with the first of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots, Connally with the second shot, and JFK with the third shot.
A perfectly reasonable PRELIMINARY finding. Oswald had fired three shots. JFK had been hit by two. JBC had been hit by one. If not for the Zapruder film, that probably would have been the final conclusion. The Zapruder film revealed that JFK and JBC had been hit too close together to have been hit by separate shots from Oswald's bolt action rifle. There was no physical evidence of a second gunman. That presented a puzzle. I don't know how the thought process played out and when the SBT was first formulated, but it made perfect sense. The Secret Service reenactments showed that at the time the WC believed JFK was first hit (Z210-225), JBC was directly in line to be struck by a bullet exiting from JFK's throat. If JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet, it also meant that one of Oswald's 3 shots hadn't struck either man. That presented a missed shot to account for. The WC was never able to conclude which of the 3 shots missed and presented arguments for and against for each of the three shots to have been the miss, but they never indicated a preference for any of them. A missed shot was consistent with having only two recovered bullets. A missed shot also presented a second possible explanation for Tague's wound. Without a missed, about the only possibility would have been a fragment exiting JFK's head and continuing down range to hit the curb near Tague.
This is indeed important evidence because the 1/13/1964 report cites the autopsy report. WC apologists, including J. Edgar Hoover, excused the FBI's first report on the shooting (the 12/9/1963 FBI report) with the doubtful excuse that it was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy report. That excuse cannot be floated for the 1/13/1964 report, because it specifically cites the autopsy report.
That's funny. I've never seen anybody but you offer that as an explanation for why the initial report concluded 3 shots, 3 hits. This is just you creating another strawman argument to attack.
[Actually, the 1/13/1964 report does not cite the autopsy report as such but cites the FBI report on the autopsy authored by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill; the FBI report on the autopsy includes every single important finding of the autopsy report and also provides additional information about the autopsy. So the 1/13/64 FBI report had the benefit of all the autopsy findings plus additional information about the autopsy.]
What is revealing about the visual aids brochure for the 1/13/1963 FBI report is that it gives the timing of the shots by providing the distance from the sixth-floor window at which each shot occurred:
"SHOT ONE was fired from a distance of 167 feet"
"SHOT TWO was fired from a distance of 262 feet"
"SHOT THREE was fired from a distance of 307 feet"
(CD 298, pp. 21-23, 25, https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/10699)
What is especially revealing about the visual aids brochure is that it includes photos of a model of Dealey Plaza with model cars placed in the locations on Elm Street to represent where the limo was located when each hit occurred.
You'll notice that the photos show that the first hit occurred when the limo was nowhere near the Stemmons Freeway sign and was only 167 feet from the sixth-floor window (CD 298, pp. 21-24, 26-27). 167 feet from the sixth-floor window would be right around Z193. Humm, that's almost the exact same time that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK was first hit (Z186-190), and JFK would have been out of the sixth-floor gunman's view from Z166-209.
The second-shot distance of 262 feet would put the hit on Connally at right around Z311.
The third-shot distance of 307 feet would put the third shot at right around Z318.
Again, this was still very early in the process. They had figured some things out but not everything. That would come later. You are being critical of working hypotheses rather than judging the final product. That wouldn't come until September 1964. You ought to read that sometime. Maybe it would stop you from making some of your sillier arguments.
Either the FBI experts were shockingly incompetent or they could not have been viewing the same version of the Zapruder film that was published in the Warren Report and that has been in circulation since 1975. It is too bad they did not identify the Zapruder frames for their three shots, even though they used the Zapruder fim as the main basis for their analysis, but at least they gave the window-to-JFK distance for each shot so we can see the severe mismatch between their timing for the second and third shots and the extant Zapruder film.
Again, the investigation was a work in progress and you are attacking preliminary results. I guess that's easier than attacking the final conclusions of the WCR.
The 1/13/1964 FBI report notes the following facts:
-- "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length" (p. 2).
-- "The bag [the paper bag allegedly found in the sniper's nest] was examined for any evidence of the outline of a rifle but no significant indentations were found" (p. 5).
-- Two women who rode on the Red Arrow bus with Oswald on the way to Mexico City, Patricia Winston and Pamela Mumford, said he recommended they stay at the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City because he said "he had stayed there several times and had found it inexpensive. (p. 49).
Who gives a (bleep) what a 01/13/1964 report said. They were a little more than one month into a nine month fact finding process. Do you think they should have found all the facts at that point?
The FBI confirmed there was indeed a Hotel Cuba in Mexico City, but the hotel's records did not show that anyone by the name of Oswald had stayed there (p. 49). So how did Oswald know about the Hotel Cuba in Mexico City? Just an amazingly lucky guess?
You focus on some really silly $hit.
-- Mrs. Alexandra Taylor, who "became friendly with Oswald's wife," described Oswald as "bright" and as someone "who could argue logically and persuasively, and who was positive in his ideas and strong in his convictions." She said "she found it hard to believe he would want to kill President Kennedy" (p. 29).
I guess we should just ignore all the evidence that Oswald was the assassin because a friend of his wife didn't think he would want to kill the POTUS. Brilliant reasoning, Clouseau.