Conspiracy theorists rejoice: JFK files soon to be released.

[Adonia]

JFK assassination: Trump to allow release of classified documents

President Trump announced on Twitter that he will allow the release of thousands of classified documents about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy after years of delays.

The unexpected move means the trove of never-before-seen documents are set to be released by the National Archives by Oct. 26

Congress mandated in 1992 that all assassination documents be released within 25 years, unless the president asserts that doing so would harm intelligence, law enforcement, military operations or foreign relations. The still-secret documents include more than 3,000 that have never been seen by the public and more than 30,000 that have been released previously, but with redactions.

The only way we will ever know the truth of this is when we are in the hereafter and God asks us: "Is there anything you would like to know about some of the events that occurred while you were on planet earth"? Other than that, we here on earth in this space and time will never know the truth about all this, we can only speculate.

 

[Rob_BW]

It has Been duplicated numerous times. The rifle used was cheap, but it was a very good rifle. The Carcano was not a pretty rifle, but it was highly functional and reasonably accurate. It is a better rifle than the Mosin Nagant and I have seen the Mosin repeatedly shoot 15" groups at 1000 yards.

Yeah, the barrels of those old guns were very good, the ammo was more of a limiting factor. I collect old WWI and WWII guns, and with modern ammo many are very accurate. My Mosin shoots better than any $59.00 rifle should. Still need to add a Carcano to the stable, though, but I want a long rifle, ot a carbine.

 

[Rob_BW]

The only way we will ever know the truth of this is when we are in the hereafter and God asks us: "Is there anything you would like to know about some of the events that occurred while you were on planet earth"? Other than that, we here on earth in this space and time will never know the truth about all this, we can only speculate.

Most likely. The kind of evidence needed to settle it probably does not exist.

 

[Adonia]

Correct! Oswald did not have sniper training...but he qualified as a rifleman.

Irregardless, someone shot JFK and I’m curious to see how it really went down.

I tend to believe a man named James Files, who claims to be the shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll. He claims it was a CIA/Mafia hit. If you ever hear him talk about what happened (yes, it's available on the net), he reels off everything without a beat about what happened. He used a weapon called a "Fireball" which had just came out which was like a large pistol that shot a .221 cartridge. The Dealey Plaza area is quite small and it was only about 150 ft. feet from the fence on the grassy knoll to the point of impact. To me his whole story is quite plausible, but then again who really knows.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The only way we will ever know the truth of this is when we are in the hereafter and God asks us: "Is there anything you would like to know about some of the events that occurred while you were on planet earth"? Other than that, we here on earth in this space and time will never know the truth about all this, we can only speculate.

That would not be parimount in my mind brother. Rather, why did you make my sister cerebral palsy, why did you take my father from me at a critical time in my families existence, etc. more personal stuff if you can understand. The Kennedy assignation is a curious point but hardly worth discussing with my God.

 

[Alcott]

The only way we will ever know the truth of this is when we are in the hereafter and God asks us: "Is there anything you would like to know about some of the events that occurred while you were on planet earth"? Other than that, we here on earth in this space and time will never know the truth about all this, we can only speculate.

Are we going to be concerned about what really happened back there back then? I rather think not

 

[Reynolds]

Yeah, the barrels of those old guns were very good, the ammo was more of a limiting factor. I collect old WWI and WWII guns, and with modern ammo many are very accurate. My Mosin shoots better than any $59.00 rifle should. Still need to add a Carcano to the stable, though, but I want a long rifle, ot a carbine.

Yeah, the FBI tested that rifle and that ammo. Oswald had adjusted the scope bondage and elevation for the lead the shot required. FBI said that particular Carcano and lot of ammo was extremely accurate. Ammo lot number is critical when evaluating ammunition performance.

I tend to believe a man named James Files, who claims to be the shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll. He claims it was a CIA/Mafia hit. If you ever hear him talk about what happened (yes, it's available on the net), he reels off everything without a beat about what happened. He used a weapon called a "Fireball" which had just came out which was like a large pistol that shot a .221 cartridge. The Dealey Plaza area is quite small and it was only about 150 ft. feet from the fence on the grassy knoll to the point of impact. To me his whole story is quite plausible, but then again who really knows.

Not that either shot would have been too hard, the shot from the knoll with a pistol would have been much harder than Oswalds "impossible" or "magic" shot. Noted, the XP 100 is a pistol that is more accurate than most rifles. It is also a pistol that is very hard to shoot if not using proper rest. I know, I have 3 of them.

 

[Adonia]

Yeah, the FBI tested that rifle and that ammo. Oswald had adjusted the scope bondage and elevation for the lead the shot required. FBI said that particular Carcano and lot of ammo was extremely accurate. Ammo lot number is critical when evaluating ammunition performance.

Not that either shot would have been too hard, the shot from the knoll with a pistol would have been much harder than Oswalds "impossible" or "magic" shot. Noted, the XP 100 is a pistol that is more accurate than most rifles. It is also a pistol that is very hard to shoot if not using proper rest. I know, I have 3 of them.

Good, then you know about that weapon. I had discounted a shooter from the grassy knoll because a rifle would have been hard to conceal, but the XP-100 would have been a logical weapon for that particular area.It was small, easily concealable, and packed the punch for a 150 ft. shot. Plus we are talking about a professional shooter here, a man with his emotions under control and there to do a job. I disagree though that the shot would have been harder than a supposed shot by Oswald. The target was coming TOWARD the shooter, not going in the other direction. A man competent with his weapon and a professional to boot, I think it would have been the easier shot. I admit, I say this as just an amateur shooter of some 40 years having put many rounds downrange of various calibers. But in the end, it is my humble opinion that this job of taking out the POTUS called for a professional, not some rank amateur like Oswald.

 

[Rob_BW]

Amateurs have been successful at assassination for ages.

 

[Baptist Believer]

No, it was not duplicated many times. In his book "Rush to Judgement" author Mark Lane describes how NRA sharpshooters were not able to duplicate Oswald's supposed feat AT A STATIONARY TARGET NO LESS! This was the cover-up of a century, with even the 'assassin" himself getting killed.

Not everything that Mark Lane wrote was accurate.

 

[Baptist Believer]

After having visited the Texas Book Depository and looking out the sixth floor window...

As one who is quite familiar with the site, has looked out those windows - nearby ones on the sixth floor and the window immediately above on the seventh - and has walked through Dealey Plaza more times that I can count, let me offer my opinion.

...the shot to take would have been when the limo was coming TOWARDS the building, not going away from it. That would have been the clear shot for the amateur would be assassin.

You are making all sorts of assumptions, but I will only point out the most obvious two: (1) The first is that you are certain Oswald would not have hesitated before trying to assassinate the leader of the free world. It is entirely conceivable that Oswald would have balked at shooting the President "in the face" and only decided to seize the opportunity once the opportunity was slipping away from him once the limo turned and headed toward the triple underpass. (2) The head on shot would be technically easier to pull off, but it would also be obvious where the shots were coming from and Oswald probably would have been fired upon almost immediately. Even if he survived immediate retaliation, his location would have been obvious and he would not have made it out of the building. Oswald was intent on escape.

The Carcano was a piece of crap AND it was determined that the scope was out of alignment.

You assume he was using the (side-mounted) scope and not the sights on the top of the weapon.

Here's more information about the rifle.

The most damning give away however was the "single bullet theory". Yes, that single bullet that was supposed to have gone through Kennedy AND Gov. Connelly and was miraculously found on Connelly's stretcher in a PRISTINE condition. Yeah, right.

That's unbelievable because it is not true. The bullet was NOT pristine, no matter how many times conspiracists claim it is. The famous photo of the bullet (just showing one long side) does not reveal how flattened/distorted it is. Moreover, the diagrams conspiracists like to show, claiming that Kennedy and Connelly we nicely lined up behind one another at the same height does not correspond to the reality that the Connelly's were sitting on a "jump seat" located much lower and closer to the center of the car. That positioning, combined with Connelly's slightly rotated position at the time and the bend in the street, makes a straight-line bullet trail up perfectly with the sixth floor of the depository.

Not to mention that the surgeon who had operated on the Governor was caught on television (yes, the video is still available) after the surgery telling the reporter that this aforementioned bullet HAD NOT been removed from Connelly's body.

It was never claimed that the bullet was removed from the body. The bullet was found in Connelly's stretcher. There were small fragments from the bullet that were not removed from his body. So no one was "caught" saying anything other than the official story.

This whole thing was a monumental cover-up from beginning to end and I don't know who actually killed Kennedy, but you can be sure it was professionals who did the dirty deed and not the amateur Oswald, the patsy.

Conclusions like that need to be supported by evidence.

For a long time, I believed that there was a conspiracy, based primarily on the popular misinformation promoted by the conspiracy folks regarding the single-bullet theory. That belief died quite quickly when I heard someone explain the seating in the Presidential limo and I found photos of it on my own - taken outside Parkland hospital with blood and brain matter still covering the seats - that confirmed the arrangement. Then when I discovered the truth about the bullet not being pristine, it all fell apart. Beyond all that, I have visited the site and have personally explored the various conspiracy theories. I've stood behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll to see whether or not that was a good place to shoot (yes it is, but don't plan on escaping), although it doesn't match the forensic evidence. Just a couple of months ago, I stood on the exact spot where the Zapruder film was shot and watched the sequence on my phone, panning across the site. It all makes sense that it was a lone gunman.

You have simply been misled by false descriptions of evidence. It happened to me. Look into what I have written.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The only way we will ever know the truth of this is when we are in the hereafter...

Oh no, it is possible to know quite a bit about this. There's lots of evidence.

 

[carpro]

I don't think we'll find out much we don't already know. The documents will probably raise more questions than they provide answers.

 

[Reynolds]

Not everything that Mark Lane wrote was accurate.

Agreed. I know some "NRA sharpshooter" who in my opinion suck. You take a sbooterwho is used to a modern rifle with a benchrest trigger, hand him a surplus rifle with a dual stage trigger and see what happens.

 

[Adonia]

Not everything that Mark Lane wrote was accurate.

I believe more of what he wrote than what the Warren Commission wrote.

 

[Adonia]

You are making all sorts of assumptions, but I will only point out the most obvious two: (1) The first is that you are certain Oswald would not have hesitated before trying to assassinate the leader of the free world. It is entirely conceivable that Oswald would have balked at shooting the President "in the face" and only decided to seize the opportunity once the opportunity was slipping away from him once the limo turned and headed toward the triple underpass. (2) The head on shot would be technically easier to pull off, but it would also be obvious where the shots were coming from and Oswald probably would have been fired upon almost immediately. Even if he survived immediate retaliation, his location would have been obvious and he would not have made it out of the building. Oswald was intent on escape.

Why would Oswald have hesitated with a face on shot? Good grief, if it was just him, what he was planning to do that day was to blast the POTUS to kingdom come, from the front or back the result would have been the same.

And then we have the rifle itself. With all the rifles out there, why the Carcano? Good grief, a Savage 99 or a Remington would have been a much better choice for a hit on the President. Both were cheap, widely available, and wouldn't you want a better rifle to take out the POTUS?

I fail to see how people would not have known where the shot's came from regardless if he shot Kennedy as he was coming towards him or going away - the retort of the rifle is just as loud either way. And you really think he was intent on escaping? Please! If it had been him, it was a "suicide" mission of sorts and he would have realized that. He was there to play his part- the proverbial patsy. Also, if he was intent on escape, why would he ever: A. Shoot a Dallas police officer? B. Then go into a movie theatre? That makes no sense whatsoever!

What makes sense is that Oswald the patsy WAS TOLD to go to the theatre where he would be silenced by his handlers. Officer Tippitt was killed by the man going to do in Oswald, who had been stopped by the officer enroute. Now that makes entirely more sense.

That's unbelievable because it is not true. The bullet was NOT pristine, no matter how many times conspiracists claim it is. The famous photo of the bullet (just showing one long side) does not reveal how flattened/distorted it is. Moreover, the diagrams conspiracists like to show, claiming that Kennedy and Connelly we nicely lined up behind one another at the same height does not correspond to the reality that the Connelly's were sitting on a "jump seat" located much lower and closer to the center of the car. That positioning, combined with Connelly's slightly rotated position at the time and the bend in the street, makes a straight-line bullet trail up perfectly with the sixth floor of the depository.

Sorry, but I just cannot believe you on this one either. I don't remember the Doctor being interviewed on TV saying just "fragments" either. The bullet remains in pretty good shape considering the bone and flesh it went thought - of 2 bodies no less! Nope, not buying it.

For a long time, I believed that there was a conspiracy, based primarily on the popular misinformation promoted by the conspiracy folks regarding the single-bullet theory. That belief died quite quickly when I heard someone explain the seating in the Presidential limo and I found photos of it on my own - taken outside Parkland hospital with blood and brain matter still covering the seats - that confirmed the arrangement. Then when I discovered the truth about the bullet not being pristine, it all fell apart. Beyond all that, I have visited the site and have personally explored the various conspiracy theories. I've stood behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll to see whether or not that was a good place to shoot (yes it is, but don't plan on escaping), although it doesn't match the forensic evidence. Just a couple of months ago, I stood on the exact spot where the Zapruder film was shot and watched the sequence on my phone, panning across the site. It all makes sense that it was a lone gunman.

I myself have spent several hours at the site, looking at the whole area from several vantage points. Like I said, the minute I was at the sixth floor window and being a shooter of some 40 years, the shot to take was when the target was coming towards you - that is what I immediately thought. As for taking the shot from behind the grassy knoll and escaping, well maybe it would have not been so difficult. Remember, the RR tracks and that RR area is right behind the fence, so you have taken just one shot with that small weapon (the XP-100) which can be quickly and easily concealed, you have had your compatriots dressed up as Secret Service agents who have kept the area clear of civilians, and no there were no other Law Enforcement people around and it is easy to see how one of the real assassins got away.

Well anyway, to me it makes absolutely no sense for the lone gunman theory. This was a professional hit from beginning to end. The job they had planned was so thorough that even the patsy they had enlisted would be eliminated - and Oswald was it.

The idea that it was a person who was but an average shooter and armed with a substandard rifle was the only man in on the hit of the decade (if not the century), is completely and utterly preposterous to me and no one can convince me otherwise.

 

[Alcott]

In this clip from Walter Cronkite Remembers, he recounts the CBS special of 1968, in which their crew did its own investigation into the conclusions of the Warren Commission-- he admitted with the intent of proving it wrong. But he says "... all we did was prove it right"
This begins at 1:25 and lasts till 3:15.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Why would Oswald have hesitated with a face on shot?

Because he was human. He was about to do a momentous thing.

Good grief, if it was just him, what he was planning to do that day was to blast the POTUS to kingdom come, from the front or back the result would have been the same.

Not really. Cowards don't like to attack from the front, they wait until their victim's back is turned. Moreover, there's the issue of wanting to get away.

And then we have the rifle itself. With all the rifles out there, why the Carcano? Good grief, a Savage 99 or a Remington would have been a much better choice for a hit on the President. Both were cheap, widely available, and wouldn't you want a better rifle to take out the POTUS?

Just because he was not using the best equipment (according to our specifications) does not mean he didn't do it. Maybe he was comfortable with that kind of setup? Perhaps that's what he was able to afford at the moment he decided to buy one through the mail? I prefer my Mossberg shotgun over the Remington shotguns I have tried out, even though the Remington is widely considered to be the much better firearm. It's a matter of personal preference.

I fail to see how people would not have known where the shot's came from regardless if he shot Kennedy as he was coming towards him or going away - the retort of the rifle is just as loud either way.

People had trouble determining where the shots came from in the immediate aftermath. Many assumed that the shots must have come from in front of the President. That's why there's all kinds of interest in the grassy knoll. The volume of the report is not the issue. Dealey Plaza has lots of buildings and memorial structures that caused the report of the rifle shots to echo in weird ways.

And you really think he was intent on escaping?

He certainly made a valiant attempt to do so - even murdering Officer Tippett.

Please! If it had been him, it was a "suicide" mission of sorts and he would have realized that. He was there to play his part- the proverbial patsy.

You are (1) assuming that he was a "patsy", (2) he was thinking rationally, and (3) he would not have a survival instinct.

Also, if he was intent on escape, why would he ever: A. Shoot a Dallas police officer?

The officer tried to detain him. If he was intent on escape, wouldn't he try to avoid custody - that is, escape?

B. Then go into a movie theatre? That makes no sense whatsoever!

He was in danger of being captured out in the open. A theatre would actually be a good place because he could blend into the crowd in a dark room and figure out his next move. It makes all kinds of sense.

What makes sense is that Oswald the patsy WAS TOLD to go to the theatre where he would be silenced by his handlers. Officer Tippitt was killed by the man going to do in Oswald, who had been stopped by the officer enroute. Now that makes entirely more sense.

Where is your evidence for this novel theory?

Sorry, but I just cannot believe you on this one either. I don't remember the Doctor being interviewed on TV saying just "fragments" either. The bullet remains in pretty good shape considering the bone and flesh it went thought - of 2 bodies no less! Nope, not buying it.

Here's another angle on the "pristine" bullet:

Where is this doctor's interview?

I suggest you spend some time reviewing these links.

I myself have spent several hours at the site, looking at the whole area from several vantage points. Like I said, the minute I was at the sixth floor window and being a shooter of some 40 years, the shot to take was when the target was coming towards you - that is what I immediately thought.

That's the cold rational choice if you had no concern about getting away. But if you are human, have a volatile personality, and want to live, then you might make other choices in that moment.

As for taking the shot from behind the grassy knoll and escaping, well maybe it would have not been so difficult. Remember, the RR tracks and that RR area is right behind the fence, so you have taken just one shot with that small weapon (the XP-100) which can be quickly and easily concealed, you have had your compatriots dressed up as Secret Service agents who have kept the area clear of civilians, and no there were no other Law Enforcement people around and it is easy to see how one of the real assassins got away.

You are engaging in circular reasoning. You assume that there is a conspiracy with several persons to assist, and you dismiss the choices that Oswald made based on the assumption that there a conspiracy. Then on the basis of your critique of Oswald's choices, you declare that he could not be the lone gunman.

Well anyway, to me it makes absolutely no sense for the lone gunman theory. This was a professional hit from beginning to end. The job they had planned was so thorough that even the patsy they had enlisted would be eliminated - and Oswald was it.

You could have avoided talking about evidence at all since nothing you have presented has supported this assertion.

The idea that it was a person who was but an average shooter and armed with a substandard rifle was the only man in on the hit of the decade (if not the century), is completely and utterly preposterous to me and no one can convince me otherwise.

I appreciate your honesty ("...no one can convince me otherwise") about this subject so I won't waste my time talking about evidence since you are not open to changing your mind.

 

[Baptist Believer]

My predictions as to what we will learn from the confidential files:

(1) We will see that the US had penetrated the internal communications systems of a number of countries and world leaders and there will be reports as to whether or not governments opposed to the US were reacting to the Kennedy assassination. Some of this material has already been made public in James Bamford's book on the NSA, Body of Secrets, so there shouldn't be much that is groundbreaking here except public knowledge of the level of signals intelligence we had in the early 1960s. The government would want to keep this material confidential until this year so that our signals intelligence (using the older technology) would not be compromised.

(2) We will probably see that the intelligence agencies had evidence that - only in hindsight - would have allowed them to understand that Oswald was a man dangerous to the President.

(3) There will be no evidence of a conspiracy, which will cause the conspiracists to claim that there is a conspiracy to conceal the conspiracy.

 

[Alcott]

The idea that it was a person who was but an average shooter and armed with a substandard rifle was the only man in on the hit of the decade (if not the century), is completely and utterly preposterous to me and no one can convince me otherwise.

You just showed right there the conspiracy theorist's mind. "The idea" that someone insignificant could take out the arguably most powerful man in the world is-- has to be-- "preposterous," so you refuse to think logically without bias about the event, no matter what facts are presented.