Just a thought on why John F Kennedy was killed

Tipsy McSwagger

Rasheed wrote: »

You are making fair points but how can you be so sure? How do you know all the evidence was released? Ok so Jean Hill might not have been a reliable witness but what about the other people claiming intimidation?

Of course every so many people/ agencies have been blamed but maybe one is the truth?

You are doing alot of presuming done about the brain and what Oswald was going to do/ should have, the same as everyone else because we don't know.

Of course Oswald was guilty, I never once thought he wasn't. All I'm doing is questioning the possibility of him doing it alone, with someone, for someone.

In all fairness, The Warren Commission could be correct. Nothing major has come to light since to seriously challange it, but there are snippets of evidence that was proven to be with held/ left out. Maybe they would have reached the same conclusion anyway.

On another note, why do you think Ruby killed Oswald?

He already answered this in post 10
Ruby admired JFK and Jackie Kennedy and he shot dead Oswald because he was paranoid that Jews would be blamed and wanted to demonstrate Jews could be patriotic and to spare Jackie the ordeal of testifying in court.

Ruby was in a bank across the street from the police department wiring money to one of his strippers so she could pay her rent, and when he came out he seen a few people mulling around. He wandered over and managed to sneak in. After he shot Oswald he thought he would be a hero but the cops were seriously pissed with him.

buried

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He already answered this in post 10
Ruby admired JFK and Jackie Kennedy and he shot dead Oswald because he was paranoid that Jews would be blamed and wanted to demonstrate Jews could be patriotic and to spare Jackie the ordeal of testifying in court.

Ruby was in a bank across the street from the police department wiring money to one of his strippers so she could pay her rent, and when he came out he seen a few people mulling around. He wandered over and managed to sneak in. After he shot Oswald he thought he would be a hero but the cops were seriously pissed with him.

Paranoid that Jews would be blamed? Spare Jackie Kennedy an ordeal? Those two statements sound more like a conspiracy theory than anything else on this thread. Why would he be so paranoid that Jewish people would be blamed? Oswald was not Jewish.
And as for 'sparing Jackie the ordeal of testifying in court' Ruby himself wrote a private note to one of his later attorneys Joesph Tonahill that stated "Joe, you should know this. [My first lawyer] Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

Paranoid that Jews would be blamed? Spare Jackie Kennedy an ordeal? Those two statements sound more like a conspiracy theory than anything else on this thread. Why would he be so paranoid that Jewish people would be blamed? Oswald was not Jewish.
And as for 'sparing Jackie the ordeal of testifying in court' Ruby himself wrote a private note to one of his later attorneys Joesph Tonahill that stated "Joe, you should know this. [My first lawyer] Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"

Ruby was a loon just like Oswald.

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

Ruby was a loon just like Oswald.

Yes, another loon with ties to CIA anti-Castro elements. Just like Oswald.

Ruby just just went a bit further in being acquainted with dodgy people, seeing as how he had ties to both the Dallas mafia and the Dallas police department.

snafuk35

buried wrote: »

Yes, another loon with ties to CIA anti-Castro elements. Just like Oswald.

Oswald was Pro-Castro. He had no CIA connections. He was just a lay about loser who went from crappy dead end job to crappy dead end job.

Ruby just just went a bit further in being acquainted with dodgy people, seeing as how he had ties to both the Dallas mafia and the Dallas police department.

Ruby was a fat slob of low intellect who ran a crummy strip club. The guy fastened onto cops hoping they would give him business. They looked on him as a harmless boob.

That's about all these lowlifes amounted to.

This is an interesting link to an article about what people who knew Ruby well had to say about him:

http://www.jfk-online.com//rubydef.html

Rasheed

buried wrote: »

Paranoid that Jews would be blamed? Spare Jackie Kennedy an ordeal? Those two statements sound more like a conspiracy theory than anything else on this thread. Why would he be so paranoid that Jewish people would be blamed? Oswald was not Jewish.
And as for 'sparing Jackie the ordeal of testifying in court' Ruby himself wrote a private note to one of his later attorneys Joesph Tonahill that stated "Joe, you should know this. [My first lawyer] Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"

Yes, I agree i think there is more to it then the notion he was sparing Jackie or doing it for the Jews.

snafuk35

Rasheed wrote: »

Yes, I agree i think there is more to it then the notion he was sparing Jackie or doing it for the Jews.

Fame and fortune? Ruby killed the guy who killed JFK. Maybe he thought he would be famous and make lots of money? The guy was nuts.

Rasheed

snafuk35 wrote: »

Fame and fortune? Ruby killed the guy who killed JFK. Maybe he thought he would be famous and make lots of money? The guy was nuts.

Maybe. You know he claimed he was injected with cancer? Was that ever proven/ disproven? Is it even possible to get cancer that way?!

He was most definitely crazy but I do think he other reasons to kill him.

snafuk35

Rasheed wrote: »

Maybe. You know he claimed he was injected with cancer? Was that ever proven/ disproven? Is it even possible to get cancer that way?!

He died in prison of lung cancer. Why would "they" inject him with lung cancer and kill him years after the assassination of JFK and the killing of Oswald if "they" wanted to keep him quiet?

He was most definitely crazy but I do think he other reasons to kill him.

What other reasons? Oswald was a complete stranger. Ruby was ranting and raving to any acquaintances who would listen about how upset he was about JFK being killed in the city he lived in, how he thought people like the John Birch Society would pin it on the Jews, how Jackie would suffer from having to testify, how Oswald might get off and so on and so on. The more the weekend went on the more nutty Ruby became. He went so far as to ask Oswald a question at the press conference in the police HQ. He was gearing up to an explosion and that came when he went to the Western Union office across the street and then strolled down the ramp of the underground carpark. He arrived only seconds before Oswald was being led out and BANG he shot him. I think he only decided to kill right there and then.

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

Oswald was Pro-Castro. He had no CIA connections. He was just a lay about loser who went from crappy dead end job to crappy dead end job.



Ruby was a fat slob of low intellect who ran a crummy strip club. The guy fastened onto cops hoping they would give him business. They looked on him as a harmless boob.

That's about all these lowlifes amounted to.

This is an interesting link to an article about what people who knew Ruby well had to say about him:

http://www.jfk-online.com//rubydef.html

Well, concerning Oswald's CIA connections, the FBI investigated meetings between Oswald and Frank Sturgis (known CIA) 3 weeks before the assassination. Oswald knew Barry Seal (known CIA). In 1963 Seal flew his private Comanche jet numerous times back and forth from the US to Mexico. Louis Gaudin, an air-traffic con­troller at Red­bird Air­port, located south of Dal­las, told the FBI he witnessed a Comanche Jet departing for Canada with 3 men in business suits on the day of the assasination. Seal's wife claimed "Barry Seal flew the getaway plane out of Dallas after JFK was killed". Sturgis and Seal were seen days before the assasination in Mexico. Oswald was in the same training unit of the Civil Air Patrol (C.A.P) as Barry Seal. That training camp was run by David Ferrie and his anti Castro Cuban associates that were backed by the CIA in a facility at Lake Ponchartrain in Louisiana.

The House Select Committee in 1977 investigated this Louisiana facility and the for­mer Deputy Chief Coun­sel of the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions (HSCA) Robert Tan­nen­baum, recalled that the com­mit­tee viewed private film reel footage of the facility and were shocked - Tannenbaum stated - ‘The movie was shock­ing to me because it demon­strated the notion that the CIA was train­ing, in Amer­ica, a sep­a­rate army,’ he said. ‘It was shock­ing to me because I’m a true believer in the sys­tem and yet there are noto­ri­ous char­ac­ters in the sys­tem, who are funded by the sys­tem, who are absolutely un-American! And who knows what they would do, even­tu­ally. What if we send peo­ple to Wash­ing­ton who they can’t deal with? Out comes their secret army? So, I find that to be as con­trary to the Con­sti­tu­tion as you can get.’

Tannenbaum later resigned from the HSCA because he stated that the committee was "creating false history".

What is even more shock­ing is what the film footage revealed. Accord­ing to Tan­nen­baum, depicted in the film among the Cuban exiles were Guy Ban­is­ter, David Atlee Philips and Lee Har­vey Oswald. Atlee Phillips worked with 'Alpha 66', a organization of anti Castro Cubans in Mexico and was seen with Oswald in Mexico City in autumn 1963. Howard Hunt later named Phillips as one of the JFK assassins on his deathbed. Guy Banister was a former FBI agent and ran a private detective agency in New Orleans and was heavily involved in anti-Castro activities.

The House Select Com­mit­tee also devel­oped infor­ma­tion link­ing Ban­is­ter employee Fer­rie, Oswald and Clay Shaw. Cred­i­ble eye­wit­ness tes­ti­mony places these indi­vid­u­als at a Clin­ton (Louisiana) voter reg­is­tra­tion drive in August of 1963. “The chair­man of the Clin­ton chap­ter of CORE [Con­gress Of Racial Equal­ity], Cor­rie Collins, was mon­i­tor­ing the drive out­side the Registrar’s office, when at approx­i­mately 10:00a.m. he noticed the arrival of the car. Think­ing they might be FBI, Collins stud­ied the car and its occu­pants closely. As the car came to a stop, he observed a young white male exit the rear of the car and enter the reg­is­tra­tion line, while the dri­ver and the other pas­sen­ger remained in the car. Later, under oath, at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969 and in his tes­ti­mony to the HSCA in 1978, Collins would iden­tify the dri­ver of the car as Clay Shaw, the pas­sen­ger as David Fer­rie, and the per­son in the reg­is­tra­tion line as Lee Har­vey Oswald.”

The official line is that Oswald was a communist sympathiser but to claim Oswald had no CIA anti Cuban connections is dubious at best, considering he knew and was witnessed with Sturgis, Seal, Atlee Phillips, Banister, Shaw and Ferrie. Those connections were obviously rogue elements within the CIA but nonetheless those elements were being funded by the system just like Tannenbaum stated from the HSCA investigations he was part of.

Apologies for the length of post. I have not seen that Ruby link but I will look at it, Its the rogue CIA elements in the case that I am most interested in.

Tipsy McSwagger

He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little Communist.
Jackie Kennedy

Sums it all up really.

Treora

snafuk35 wrote: »

This is an interesting link to an article about what people who knew Ruby well had to say about him:

http://www.jfk-online.com//rubydef.html

This is hardly a credible website.

And this points to the reasoning used, the certainty of incredible evidence. "All the evidence was released", "witnesses were not intimidated" and 'the Warren report was accurate'. Many things today are known to be fabricated - LIBOR scandal for one and the FED is essentially and legislated LIBOR. LIBOR existed for 25 years and over that time 1,000s of people were in on it to the extent that they fooled the general public.

In the 1960's many people could manipulate evidence and history is written by the last person to hold the pen. Many things have lost trust from these times such as the sancity of the Irish Catholic clergy. Many documentary proofs were shown to be false - Stalin was still fabricating photographs to remove and re-insert those he favoured up to his death.

The biggest example of failed, unreliable and untrustworthy systems in the 1960's was that JFK was killed and not only that, but his claimed murderer was killed shortly afterwards both on camera. This in staged/photographed inability of the security services to do their job means that they are totally incompetent at doing any of the follow up work. Everyone involved in the initial evidence gathering should have been protecting (directly/indirectly) JFK and later securing LHO. They are either incompetent or complicit - it matters neither which.

The only things that I have learned from reading about JFK is that almost every party switch in president has led to a change in the directorship of the CIA almost immediately after their inaugeration. Democrats are very careful who they choose as their VP <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hunt#JFK_conspiracy_allegations_and_death> And that military/cladestine warping of the political sphere has improved immensely to the point that the USA spends $1Tn/annum on it.

Rasheed

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little Communist.
Jackie Kennedy

Sums it all up really.

She said that the day of the murder so of course she thought it was just Oswald.

snafuk35

Treora wrote: »

This is hardly a credible website.

How do you figure that?

And this points to the reasoning used, the certainty of incredible evidence.

None of the evidence is incredible.

"All the evidence was released", "witnesses were not intimidated" and 'the Warren report was accurate'. Many things today are known to be fabricated - LIBOR scandal for one and the FED is essentially and legislated LIBOR. LIBOR existed for 25 years and over that time 1,000s of people were in on it to the extent that they fooled the general public.

What does the Libor scandal prove anything about the JFK assassination?

In the 1960's many people could manipulate evidence and history is written by the last person to hold the pen.

No it isn't.

Many things have lost trust from these times such as the sancity of the Irish Catholic clergy.

Again how does the misbehaviour of Catholic priests prove anything about the JFK assassination?

Many documentary proofs were shown to be false - Stalin was still fabricating photographs to remove and re-insert those he favoured up to his death.

Evidence is only disproved by better evidence.
A dictatorship can fabricate evidence.
In an open democratic society with a free press like the United States this is practically impossible.

The biggest example of failed, unreliable and untrustworthy systems in the 1960's was that JFK was killed and not only that, but his claimed murderer was killed shortly afterwards both on camera.

This is simply not true. The evidence is available for anyone to see and examine for themselves.

This in staged/photographed inability of the security services to do their job means that they are totally incompetent at doing any of the follow up work.

Staged how? What follow up work?

Everyone involved in the initial evidence gathering should have been protecting (directly/indirectly) JFK and later securing LHO. They are either incompetent or complicit - it matters neither which.

Do you have any evidence of this?

The only things that I have learned from reading about JFK is that almost every party switch in president has led to a change in the directorship of the CIA almost immediately after their inaugeration.

That usually is true for every other top position in government. What does that have to do with anything? What does it prove about the JFK assassination?

Democrats are very careful who they choose as their VP

Gosh!I never would have guessed!

And that military/cladestine warping of the political sphere has improved immensely to the point that the USA spends $1Tn/annum on it.

Rich people want to run the US? No way! I'm shocked! That's news to me!

dogmax

First of all I want to say thanks to everyone of you all for your brilliant analysis of this tragic case in our history, what I read from all of this is an awful lot of different views, like Oswald did act alone but then again maybe not, but what about those he met before the assassination, did they act alone, now if you all don’t mind and base on what I'm reading here I like to look at this from another angle, yes sorry, but again. In the sixties three of the most influential people in our history was assassinated, President John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Senator Robert Kennedy all by so call individuals, Lee Harvey Oswald - James Earl Ray and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, now my own thoughts on this is they where assassinated basically to shut them up, but why, did the old way fear their individual influence on the new way of thinking, because these three great men had a great way with words that no individual of their time could match, now the question is, is there a connection between the three assassins, is there a connection between the people they met before the assassinations of these three great men, one thing I know for sure is somewhere in all the words that you all posted is the truth, so I ask you all and anyone new to this, let see if we can connect those words with new words to come, happy searching my Friends, oh and by the way forgive me if I come in with some silly remark, sometime I do get a bit carried away, and one other thing, it has been written that in the sixties certain mind controlling drugs where use in experiment on human guinea pig, just thought I put that in. and try to keep it quiet, Owryan trying to sleep.

Treora

snafuk35 wrote: »

How do you figure that?

Quality of site. Lack of evidence to claims :eek:

snafuk35 wrote: »

None of the evidence is incredible.

Most is in this case

snafuk35 wrote: »

What does the Libor scandal prove anything about the JFK assassination?

If motivative 1,000s of people can keep a massive lie from getting into the press, with help from the press

snafuk35 wrote: »

No it isn't.

Yes it is

snafuk35 wrote: »

Again how does the misbehaviour of Catholic priests prove anything about the JFK assassination?

Goes to accepted culture and mentality of authority during that era

snafuk35 wrote: »

Evidence is only disproved by better evidence.
A dictatorship can fabricate evidence.
In an open democratic society with a free press like the United States this is practically impossible

LIBOR scandal disproves this theory :eek:

snafuk35 wrote: »

This is simply not true. The evidence is available for anyone to see and examine for themselves.

Untrue

snafuk35 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence of this?

Sworn testamony referenced above :pac:



Your unsupported one line retorts goes to prove the sock puppet bot(extremist) theory before. The thread must have reached thresholds and your manual told you to reply to all individual pieces of evidence with one line retorts in order to make them appear invalid. It appears to weaken your argument everytime you reply in such an uncontemplative manner.

snafuk35

Treora wrote: »

Quality of site. Lack of evidence to claims :eek:

The researcher went and actually interviewed the friends and acquaintances of Jack Ruby. People who actually knew the guy. How else do you do research on who a person was and what they were really like?

Most is in this case

The mail order for the rifle in Oswald's hand writing?
The presence of the rifle on the 6th floor? The presence of the paper package he used to take it to work? Three spent shells? Fibres from his shirt, fibres from the blanket used to wrap the rifle in the Paine garage, his palm print on the rifle barrel and his prints on the crates stacked around the 6th floor window? Oswald was arrested carrying the gun that killed Tippet. He was ID'd by witnesses at scene of the JFK shooting and Tippet shooting.
The pictures taken by his wife of him posing with the rifle and handgun.
His attempts to kill General Walker.
His lies and evasive and contradictory explanations while under police questioning.
The guy was guilty as sin.

If motivative 1,000s of people can keep a massive lie from getting into the press, with help from the press

For Oswald not to have killed JFK and Officer Tippet would require literally thousands of people to have inside knowledge that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and to be complicit in the conspiracy. That is simply impossible in the real world.

Untrue

Anyone who wants to can access a vast amount of accessible material on the Kennedy assassination - documents, microfilms, reports, memos, testimonies etc etc.

Your unsupported one line retorts goes to prove the sock puppet bot(extremist) theory before. The thread must have reached thresholds and your manual told you to reply to all individual pieces of evidence with one line retorts in order to make them appear invalid. It appears to weaken your argument everytime you reply in such an uncontemplative manner.

If you could explain to me how Oswald could possibly have been framed I am all ears. There is no way one man can have all that evidence against him - damning incontrovertible evidence and still be guilty.

dogmax

Warren Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Final report cover

The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy
, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, was established on November 29, 1963,[1] by Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Its 888-page final report was presented to President Johnson on September 24, 1964,[2] and made public three days later.[3] It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of Kennedy and the wounding of Texas Governor John Connally,[4] and that Jack Ruby also acted alone when he killed Oswald.[5] The Commission's findings have since proven controversial and been both challenged and supported by later studies.

The Commission took its unofficial name—the Warren Commission—from its chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren.[6] According to published transcripts of Johnson's presidential phone conversations, some major officials were opposed to forming such a commission and several commission members took part only with extreme reluctance.[7] One of their chief reservations was that a commission would ultimately create more controversy than consensus, and those fears proved valid.[7]

Contents
URL="http://www.boards.ie/"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]hide[/COLOR][/U][/URL


1 Members


2 Method


3 Aftermath


3.1 Secret Service


3.2 Commission records


3.3 Criticisms


3.3.1 Witness testimony


3.4 Other investigations


4 See also


5 Notes


6 References


7 External links

Members

Committee


Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States (chairman) (1891–1974)


Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA), U.S. Senator, (1897–1971)


John Sherman Cooper (R-KY), U.S. Senator (1901–1991)


Hale Boggs (D-LA), U.S. Representative, House Majority Leader (1914–1972?)


Gerald Ford (R-MI), U.S. Representative (later 38th President of the United States), House Minority Leader (1913–2006)


Allen Welsh Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1893–1969)


John J. McCloy, former President of the World Bank (1895–1989)

General counsel



J. Lee Rankin
Assistant counsel


Francis William Holbrooke Adams


Joseph A. Ball


David W. Belin


William T. Coleman, Jr.


Melvin Aron Eisenberg


Burt W. Griffin


Leon D. Hubert, Jr.


Albert E. Jenner, Jr.


Wesley J. Liebeler


Norman Redlich


W. David Slawson


Arlen Specter


Samuel A. Stern


Howard P. Willens (liaison)
Staff



Philip Barson


Edward A. Conroy


John Hart Ely


Alfred Goldberg


Murray J. Laulicht


Arthur J. Marmor


Richard M. Mosk


John J. O'Brien


Stuart R. Pollak


Alfredda Scobey


Charles N. Shaffer, Jr.


Lloyd L. Weinreb

Method

The Commission conducted its business primarily in closed sessions, but these were not secret sessions.
"Two misconceptions about the Warren Commission hearing need to be clarified…hearings were closed to the public unless the witness appearing before the Commission requested an open hearing. No witness except one…requested an open hearing… Second, although the hearings (except one) were conducted in private, they were not secret. In a secret hearing, the witness is instructed not to disclose his testimony to any third party, and the hearing testimony is not published for public consumption. The witnesses who appeared before the Commission were free to repeat what they said to anyone they pleased, and all of their testimony was subsequently published in the first fifteen volumes put out by the Warren Commission."[8]

Aftermath

The Warren Commission presents its report to President Johnson


The Warren Report reproduced in book form by the Associated Press

Secret Service

The specific findings prompted the Secret Service to make numerous modifications to their security procedures.[9][10]

Commission records

In November 1964, two months after the publication of its 888-page report, the Commission published twenty-six volumes of supporting documents, including the testimony or depositions of 552 witnesses and more than 3,100 exhibits.[11] All of the commission's records were then transferred on November 23 to the National Archives. The unpublished portion of those records was initially sealed for 75 years (to 2039) under a general National Archives policy that applied to all federal investigations by the executive branch of government,[12] a period "intended to serve as protection for innocent persons who could otherwise be damaged because of their relationship with participants in the case.”[13] The 75-year rule no longer exists, supplanted by the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the JFK Records Act of 1992. By 1992, 98 percent of the Warren Commission records had been released to the public.[14] Six years later, at the conclusion of the Assassination Records Review Board's work, all Warren Commission records, except those records that contained tax return information, were available to the public with redactions.[15] The remaining Kennedy assassination related documents are scheduled to be released to the public by 2017, twenty-five years after the passage of the JFK Records Act.[16]

In 1992, the Assassination Records Review Board was created by the JFK Records Act to collect and preserve the documents relating to the assassination. It pointed out in its final report:
Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson,
Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.[17]

Criticisms

Arlen Specter reproducing the assumed alignment of the single bullet theory

In the years following the release of its report and 26 investigatory evidence volumes in 1964, the Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for some of its methods, important omissions, and conclusions.

In the foreword to the last edition of the commission's report, A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission, Gerald Ford said the CIA destroyed or kept from investigators critical secrets connected to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He said the commission's probe put "certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed." The CIA's reaction, he added, "was to hide or destroy some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion in JFK's assassination."[18][19]

Witness testimony

There were many criticisms about the witnesses and their testimonies. One is that many testimonies were heard by less than half of the commission and that only one of 94 testimonies was heard by everyone on the commission.

Other investigations

Three other U.S. government investigations have agreed with the Warren Commission's conclusion that two shots struck JFK from the rear: the 1968 panel set by Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the 1975 Rockefeller Commission, and the 1978-79 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which reexamined the evidence with the help of the largest forensics panel. The HSCA involved Congressional hearings and ultimately concluded that Oswald assassinated Kennedy, probably as the result of a conspiracy. The HSCA concluded that Oswald fired shots number one, two, and four, and that an unknown assassin fired shot number three (but missed) from near the corner of a picket fence that was above and to President Kennedy's right front on the Dealey Plaza grassy knoll. However, this conclusion has also been criticized, especially for its reliance upon disputed acoustic evidence. The HSCA Final Report in 1979 did agree with the Warren Report's conclusion in 1964 that two bullets caused all of President Kennedy's and Governor Connally's injuries, and that both bullets were fired by Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.[20]

As part of its investigation, the HSCA also evaluated the performance of the Warren Commission, which included interviews and public testimony from the two surviving Commission members (Ford and McCloy) and various Commission legal counsel staff. The Committee concluded in their final report that the Commission was reasonably thorough and acted in good faith, but failed to adequately address the possibility of conspiracy.

dogmax

United States House Select Committee on Assassinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting of the House Select Committee on Assassinations

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of
John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued its final report, concluding that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the Committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of those groups acting together.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, and then issued a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 years under Congressional rules.[1] In 1992, Congress passed legislation to collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, and created the Assassination Records Review Board to further that goal.

Contents
URL="http://www.boards.ie/"][U][COLOR=#0000ff]hide[/COLOR][/U][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/URL


1 Formation


1.1 Members


1.2 Committee staff


2 Conclusions


2.1 General conclusions


2.2 Conclusions regarding the King assassination


2.3 Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination


3 Criticisms and further research


4 References


5 External links

Formation

The HSCA was a followup to the Hart-Schweiker and Church Committee hearings that had revealed CIA ties to other assassinations and assassination attempts. The HSCA resulted from public demands following hundreds of books, magazine articles, and video documentaries completed by private citizens and professional investigators since 1963. It was also spurred by public outcry after a copy of the Zapruder film was first shown in motion on TV in March 1975, after having been stored by Life magazine out of view of the public for almost twelve years.

Members


Thomas N. Downing, (Virginia) First Chairman


Louis Stokes, (Ohio), Second Chairman


L. Richardson Preyer, (North Carolina)


Walter E. Fauntroy, (District of Columbia)


Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, (California)


Christopher Dodd, (Connecticut)


Harold Ford, Sr., (Tennessee)


Floyd Fithian, (Indiana)


Robert W. Edgar, (Pennsylvania)


Samuel L. Devine, (Ohio)


Stewart McKinney, (Connecticut)


Charles Thone, (Nebraska)


Harold S. Sawyer, (Michigan)

Committee staff


G. Robert Blakey was Chief Counsel and Staff Director to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations. After completing his work on the HSCA, Blakey went on to become the William J. and Dorothy K. O'Neill Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, and is considered the foremost expert on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Conclusions

General conclusions

In particular, the various investigations performed by the U.S. government were faulted for insufficient consideration of the possibility of a conspiracy in each case. The Committee in its report also made recommendations for legislative and administrative improvements, including making some assassinations Federal crimes.

The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice. [2]

Conclusions regarding the King assassination

On the King assassination, the Committee concluded in its report that while he was killed by one rifle shot from James Earl Ray, "there is a likelihood" that it was the result of a conspiracy, and that no U.S. government agency was part of this conspiracy probably between Ray and his brothers.

Conclusions regarding the JFK assassination

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.

The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
four shots were fired
the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. They concluded that it missed due to the lack of physical evidence of an actual bullet, of course this investigation took place almost sixteen years after the crime.

The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.

The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for not revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was deemed deficient in their protection of the President.

The HSCA made several accusations of deficiency against the FBI and CIA.[3] The accusations encompassed organizational failures, miscommunication, and a desire to keep certain parts of their operations secret. Furthermore, the Warren Commission expected these agencies to be forthcoming with any information that would aid their investigation. But the FBI and CIA only saw it as their duty to respond to specific requests for information from the commission. However, the HSCA found the FBI and CIA were deficient in performing even that limited role.

Criticisms and further research

The sole acoustic evidence relied on by the committee's experts to support its theory of a fourth gunshot (and a gunman on the grassy knoll) in the JFK assassination, was a Dictabelt recording alleged to be from a stuck transmitter on a police motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. After the committee finished its work, however, an amateur researcher listened to the recording and discovered faint crosstalk of transmissions from another police radio channel known to have been made a minute after the assassination. This was supported by the National Academy of Science article.

Further, the Dallas motorcycle policeman thought to be the source of the sounds followed the motorcade to the hospital at high speed, his siren blaring, immediately after the shots were fired. Yet the recording is of a mostly idling motorcycle, eventually determined to have been at JFK's destination, the Trade Mart, miles from Dealey Plaza.

In 2001, this criticism of the Committee's acoustic evidence was rebutted in a Science and Justice article written by D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher. He concluded the HSCA finding of a second shooter was correct and that the NAS panel's study was flawed. Thomas surmises that the Dictaphone needle jumped and created an overdub on Channel One.[4]

The 1981 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics was charged with reviewing the HSCA’s acoustic evidence, they concluded that the acoustic evidence of conspiracy was invalid. Donald Thomas who reportedly performed the first independent peer review of the HSCA’s work and who people think was “an expert on acoustic testing” never read Thomas’ own report on his work with the acoustic evidence in which he acknowledges that "he is not an acoustic expert."
[5]

In 2003, computer animator
Dale Myers used various films from the day of the shooting to plot the locations and speeds of the motorcycle police officers during the assassination, and concluded that no police motorcycles were anywhere near the precise microphone location on Houston Street required by the Committee's acoustic experts.[6] Myers' study confirmed the same misgivings voiced by HSCA photographic consultant Richard E. Sprague in 1978.

A majority of witnesses who testified on the source of the shots said they came from the direction of the Depository. However, many witnesses thought the shots came from the direction of the Knoll. Only five witnesses, from a total of over one hundred, thought the shots came from two directions simultaneously.[7]




The Mitrokhin Archive--The KGB in Europe and the West, by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, documents extensive manipulation by the KGB in creating and fostering conspiracy theories regarding the Kennedy assassination.[8] The origin of the infamous forged letter, purported to be from Oswald to E. Howard Hunt, remained inconclusive in the final opinion of the Committee,[9] leaving, in the words of Hunt, "an article of faith that I had some role in the Kennedy assassination."[10]

In 2003, Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel for the Committee, issued a statement on the
Central Intelligence Agency:

...I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald.... We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.[11]

dogmax

Now snafuk35 -- even they couldn't agree, so what make you absolutely sure you're right --- now if you don't mind, lets look as this from another angle, as I have already posted.

Tipsy McSwagger

There is no point in putting up links from Wikipedia as its an unreliable source.

dogmax

Okay Tipsy McSwagger - then why don't you put up a link that come from a reliable source, I'm sure the reading will be the same, so, go ahead punk, make my day -- another great movie, anyway, why don't we all go for a drink, and lets talk about this over a pint, okay everybody.

snafuk35

dogmax wrote: »

Now snafuk35 -- even they couldn't agree, so what make you absolutely sure you're right --- now if you don't mind, lets look as this from another angle, as I have already posted.

The conclusions of the Warren Commission still stand.
The HSCA came up with this bullcrap about four shots because of the dictabelt which has since then been proven to have recorded sounds other than gunfire at a different place and time than Dealey Plaza.
The idea that an assassin would hide behind the picket fence within feet of witnesses is crackpot.
The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots.
Three bullet cases were found on the sixth floor of the Book Despository by the corner window where a man with a rifle had been seen and people below had presumed was a secret service agent.
Oswald's rifle with fibres from his shirt and blanket from the Paine garage and his palm print on the rifle barrel was found on the sixth floor.
Howard Brennan gave a description of the shooter to cops who broadcasted an APB - the description closely matches Oswald.
Oswald vanished from the Book Despository after the shooting.
He was seen boarding and then leaving a bus, he caught a cab which dropped him off after passing by his boarding house, he doubled back, went inside changed his clothes, got a gun and then shot a cop who stopped him before fleeing to a movie theatre where he attempted to shoot arresting officers with the same gun.
The description of the Tippet shooter and the description of the Dealey Plaza shooter are too similar to be a coincidence.
Both the assassination rfle and the Tippet murder weapon were both mail ordered by Oswald using his habitual pseudonym A Hidell.
A fake ID was found on Oswald with the name A. Hidell.
Oswald's phony Fair Play For Cuba organisation in New Orleans had only two members - Oswald himself and Hidell. The A in A Hidell stood for Alek which was the name Oswald was called by people he knew in Russia because they couldn't pronouce Lee very well.
At the cop shop he was identified by witnesses to the Tippet shooting and he becomes number 1 suspect in the shooting of JFK.
It's an open and shut case.
The ballistics link the whole bullet and two bullet fragments to Oswald's gun.
If Oswald didn't shoot JFK then the Fairy Godmother must have!
Oswald was a loon. The idea that the CIA, FBI, Mafia or anyone else who have recruited this fruitcake is preposterous.
Ruby shot him because he was another loon - a fat slob of low intelligence who ran a crappy strip club.
People try to make sense of this meaningless assassination because it seems insulting that a great man like JFK could have been taken a away by such a banal nobody as Oswald.
Oswald's death - gunned down by another crazy in front of live television could not have been more grotesque.
Ever since people have wanted to make it seem sensible by pasting a conspiracy narrative over what happened. JFK was too great a man to die in such a way - he had to have been killed by other powerful people with a greater plan.

Treora

snafuk35 wrote: »

The conclusions of the Warren Commission still stand.

For nothing.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The HSCA came up with this bullcrap

Easy with the logic there.

snafuk35 wrote: »

which has since then been proven

by internally controlled biased sources and is thus not credible

snafuk35 wrote: »

The idea that an assassin would hide behind the picket fence within feet of witnesses is crackpot.

crackpot - this that your evidence!

snafuk35 wrote: »

The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots.

This discounts your eariler argument that witnesses could be easily mishear due to the noise bouncing off the buildings

snafuk35 wrote: »

Three bullet cases were found on the sixth floor of the Book Despository

Easily fabricateable.

snafuk35 wrote: »

people below had presumed was a secret service agent.

Goes to show that if the crowd could not tell who was in a window how could they tell if there was someone hiding behind a fence.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Oswald's rifle with fibres from his shirt and blanket from the Paine garage and his palm print on the rifle barrel was found on the sixth floor.

So you prove that he was one of many shooters.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Oswald was a loon. The idea that the CIA, FBI, Mafia or anyone else who have recruited this fruitcake is preposterous.

It is called plausible denyability or a useful fool or a patsy.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Ruby shot him because he was another loon - a fat slob of low intelligence who ran a crappy strip club.

Multiple failures to protect those they were designed to protect is the main flaw with the people who later gathered the evidence to prove their point after the fact.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Ever since people have wanted to make it seem sensible by pasting a conspiracy narrative over what happened. JFK was too great a man to die in such a way - he had to have been killed by other powerful people with a greater plan.

No one trusts a story that was full of holes and lacks even a shred of plausibility. They would never try anything like that today as evidience is easily recoverable that could disprove any inconsistancies in a story. Today they would have to vapourise all the evidence in an explosion.

Bill always puts it best.
http://youtu.be/11Fl9ZVJ7B8

buried

snafuk35 wrote: »

People try to make sense of this meaningless assassination because it seems insulting that a great man like JFK could have been taken a away by such a banal nobody as Oswald.

snafuk35, I totally understand what you are saying, and I firmly believe in what you are saying, you believe to be the truth. I want to believe, just as you do, that the case consists of Oswald acting on his own, as a loon, a maniac degenerate murdering a great man such as John F. Kennedy. That he perputrated the murder on his own.

I do not fall for conspiracy theories lightly, I do not fall for such theories as "the illuminati did 911" or any of that modern day conspiracy nonsense that is prevailent in these modern times. I do not believe that the CIA is full of evil-doers out to control the whole of humanity, but I firmly believe the CIA is a man-made organization, and like all man made organizations, it is surely prone to fault. I prefer to read actual history, and all of the history that surrounds this case, not just the history that has been officially shown by the mainstream media & press, and a lot of that history has been supressed - for whatever reason - I just want to see all of the history that surrounds the case, because it is there to be seen and studied.

A lot of the history at the time when the JFK assassination occured can be linked back to the end of WW2, and the clash of facism/corporatism against communism/socialism. Neither side won in that event, but the U.S did adopt the model of corporatsim to aid capitalism after WW2, as can dramatically be seen in events that have left the western world where it is today. The U.S elite in the 40's-50's-60's, in both the military and corporate sector, obviously favoured the corporate - state in league with private business - money making agenda to the socialist one. The corporate sector is the right wing sector, and always has been.

When Kennedy met Khrushcev in the Vienna summit of 1961, just after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy undoubtably looked weak compared to his Soviet counterpart in negotiations, Kennedy himself stated that Krushchev "Beat the hell out of me" and that "Khrushchev savaged me". In my opinion, when the U.S. corporate elite heard those words coming out of the President of The United States mouth, at the height of the cold war, the failure of Kennedy to appear heavy handed to "the red menace" of the USSR, those words from Kennedy must have undoubtably shocked those well connected and powerful people in the corporate elite. They may have viewed Kennedy as a weakness, that he would allow the USSR to appear superior, to be even negotiating with the USSR may have seemed to them that the US was allowing concession's to the "red menace". Appearing weak. Those corporate people had a lot to loose. Add to that, the CIA/Military grievances about the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, you have a good motive for assassination right there. These are only my opinions from studying history around that time. I believe there is more to the story than meets the eye, considering once Kennedy was murdered, the corporate and military/arms sector of the U.S. benifited enourmously. Then when you start to look at psychopaths which I have talked about in previous posts such as OP40/right wing Cubans being involved, it looks absolutely sinister.

I want to believe the assassination was the work of one man, but I like to study history, and from studying history, I find myself convinced that Oswald was not alone.

I look at it similarly to the Nazi's claim that the communists burned down the Reichstag alone. That is what the Nazi's officially claimed, but could you believe that statement, judging from the history that came after that event? That is what I am trying to say, when you study the history and the elements involved, and the effects thereafter, official versions are not worth the paper they are written on.

Jonny7

Treora wrote: »

No one trusts a story that was full of holes and lacks even a shred of plausibility.

Then you should be able to easily address each of his points regarding the case - to be fair to the other poster you aren't exactly doing that?

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Then you should be able to easily address each of his points regarding the case - to be fair to the other poster you aren't exactly doing that?

Why are you not doing that Johnny .. Just take each point in his last post and address them please .. Just to be fair to Treora

Jonny7

Sure

Treora wrote: »

For nothing.

Easy with the logic there.

crackpot - this that your evidence!

Easily fabricateable.

Today they would have to vapourise all the evidence in an explosion.

As someone who's on the fence about the JFK assassination I'm not seeing many good counterpoints here. Most seem to be driven by the 'there must be a conspiracy' stable rather than actual good concise evidence.

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

As someone who's on the fence about the JFK assassination I'm not seeing many good counterpoints here. Most seem to be driven by the 'there must be a conspiracy' stable rather than actual good concise evidence.

That is very selective quoting Johnny ... He had some good points imo

darced

This post has been deleted.