National Archives releases thousands of JFK assassination records

It wasn’t an “Oswald did it” book at all. It’s historical fiction with the supernatural mixed in. Classic King - an amazing book you should read given the subject matter. He had no agenda going into this book regarding who did it or any conspiracies but he researched the assassination tirelessly (especially Oswald as he is a character)- way more than I’d ever care to. And that was his take away. Good enough for me.

 

Well you're the first person I've heard of who states that the JFK case was solved by Stephen King because, well, because he's Stephen King and he "researched it" like nobody else apparently. That ain't "good enough for me." (BTW I've never read one of King's novels because they're too damn long. Don't those publishing houses have editors? But I like the movies I've seen, like "The Shining." ("Here's Johnny!" which I've heard wasn't in the book, and director Kubrick, who lived in England, wondered where Nicholson came up with that.)

 

I like his opinion because after reading all his novels it’s clear that he’s a huge researcher and very intelligent. But what I like most about it is that he didn’t write the book for the purposes of determining who killed Kennedy and why. He researched it so he could write his novel. And that was his conclusion as a result of massive research. There was no pre-determined motive when he began like “Oswald did it and I can prove it” or “Oswald didn’t do it and I can prove it”

He doesn’t even address it in the actual book. It’s just in the authors notes after the conclusion.

 

And also, as much as I like the shining film, the book absolutely destroys it. I had to put that novel down several times while reading it because I was so freaked out.

 

It doesn't matter whether he had a pre-determined motive or not. IMO the idea that the novelist Stephen King has out-researched people who have devoted decades to researching the JFK assassination (and have written thorough, footnoted non-fiction books about it that would fill a library), so Stephen King just has to be right and they aren't, is silly. But if you're satisfied, well good for you.

 

So is there any general consensus among those that have researched this the most about whether Oswald acted alone or not? I’m guessing that those who have invested the most time probably suspect Oswald acted alone. But for some reason that isn’t good enough for you.

 

The government did not conduct or sanction the demonstration. A television network did. They did nothing illegal in their demonstration, so there was nothing the government could do to stop it.

"An entry wound is small, an exit wound is large." Not necessarily. It depends on the details of what is being shot and how. Every case is different. Shooting a man in the head is very different than shooting a deer in the side. It's all physics. And if you look at the autopsy photos, the blowout was in between the entry and exit wounds. JFK was leaning forward from the bullet to his upper back/lower neck, and the bullet hit him at a level even with the top of his ear, and exited just in front of his right ear, but a couple inches higher. I don't know why anyone would assume from this that he was shot from the front. The main difference between entrance and exit wounds, as you can see in the drawing, is that there is extensive cracking of the skull around the entrance (where the bullet had the most energy on impact) and little around the exit (where it had less energy). The blowout was away from the entrance wound, while the exit wound was a part of the blowout. This points to a clear conclusion that the bullet entered in the back of the head and out towards the front/side of the head. Clearly, your statement that the entrance wound is small holds true, based on the drawing, and the exit wound is large is also true, based on the blowout that the exit wound was a part of. It was not a symmetrical blowout around the exit wound because the structure of the skull was weakened between the two wounds and relieved pressure first. The autopsy photos support this conclusion.

John F. Kennedy autopsy - Wikipedia



Maybe you should try reading more about the assassination and about physics and get back to us in a few years.

 

Those many who have researched it the most know damn well that Oswald didn't do it alone, if he even fired a shot. (BTW a paraffin test said that he didn't.) I have the impression that you aren't very familiar with the evidence in this case, or you wouldn't make such a frankly rather laughable assumption.

 

Oh, that makes all the difference in the world. We can trust a "television network," can't we? The media has done such a swell job on this case for 59 years and counting.

So you're going to cite, via Wikipedia, the sham autopsy conducted by the military using pathologists who had no business conducting that type of autopsy, and which even the HSCA called incompetent. You would think that a president of the United States would have deserved something better. You may want to read some of the research relating to the "autopsy" like that linked below and get back to us in a few years.

How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong - Introduction

 

Everybody knows George Bush Sr kilt him, I seen a Pic of Ole George there at the book store right b4 the capping. It's a fact.

CIA hit job

 

That pic was taken at the "book store" (actually the schoolbook depository) after the capping, not before. The trouble is, that ain't Ole George in the pic.

BTW Bush may have been the only adult in America at the time he couldn't remember where he was when JFK was shot. He said he thought he was "somewhere in Texas." In fact he was in Tyler, Texas, giving a speech to I think it was the Rotary Club. Why would he say some crap like he thought was somewhere in Texas?

It's interesting that there's a J. Edgar Hoover memo that states that a FBI briefing on the assassination was given to "Mr. George Bush of the CIA." Bush said that must have been some other Bush.

Why was he so full of crap?

 

From your own source:

So you are going to cite, via an unheard of website, someone whose qualifications include "no specific training or experience." BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!! I'll bet dollars to donuts the Bethesda doctors had a medical degree!

 

Parafin Residue tests for bolt action rifles are worthless (and in general discredited long ago) as are most other tests.

There was a reenactment sho 15-20 years ago where they shot a towed vehicle matching the speeds, distance, etc. same rifle. The splatter, etc, was very similar to recorded docs.

ymmv.

 

Laugh all you want at David Lifton. He wrote one of the most influential books ever written on the JFK assassination. He had no medical training or experience, but he personally interviewed a great number of people directly or indirectly involved with the autopsy, from the head pathologist Dr. Humes on down. And he basically proved through his interviews and research, as published in “Best Evidence,” that there was alteration of the body prior to the autopsy. Military personnel later confirmed what Lifton had laid out in his book, that the Dallas casket was empty when it arrived, accompanied by Jackie, at Bethesda. The body had arrived up to an hour before. The military claimed a decoy ambulance had been used for security purposes, as if someone was going to steal the body on its way to Bethesda. The real purpose was almost certainly to remove bullets from the body that could not be allowed to be there before autopsy. This is why JFK’s head was basically butchered in a hurry somewhere between Parkland and the autopsy. Humes himself gave this away at the beginning of the autopsy, when according to the two FBI agents who were there to observe the autopsy, the first thing Humes said was there was evidence of “surgery to the top of the head.” Oh yeah? What surgery?

Go ahead and go “BWAHAHAHA” about David Lifton. I’ll just say it’s not a good idea to laugh at something you know nothing about.

 

Thx, of course my post was pure sarcasm but thank you for some interesting insights on the subject.

My sis lives in Arlington, TX, so I have visited the site.

 

I know. I simply mentioned that such a test was performed on Oswald in reference to the question of whether Oswald fired a shot. Why was such a "worthless" test performed at all? Probably on the slim hope that the result would be positive, in which case it suddenly wouldn't be "worthless" anymore.

While we're talking about "worthless" things in the JFK case, I would also include the whole body of "evidence" against Oswald as the killer of JFK in a courtroom trial. There would have been no conviction, and such an acquittal could of course never be allowed to happen.

Can you name one mainstream media "show" in the last 59 years that was not produced in support of the Warren Commission findings, even including "proof" of the ridiculous single-bullet theory (by routinely misplacing the back wound, turning it into a "neck" wound, which the WC's esteemed Gerald Ford was caught doing)? As for the specific "reenactment" you're referring to, even if they got everything right on the speed, distance, etc. of the shot in question, how did that prove that Oswald fired the shot? It didn't because it couldn't. See my above remarks on a courtroom trial that could not be allowed to happen.

 

I watched the 2021 Oliver Stone documentary JFK Revisited: Thorough the Looking Glass this weekend. Not sure how much was new there, but lots of interviews and clips that I'd never seen. I'd be interested in watching a rebuttal of it, but it's pretty damning IF accurate, reflecting chain of custody problems, pressured witnesses, destruction of autopsy notes, pictures which seem to reflect that Oswald's rifle wasn't even the same one, etc.

 

I haven't watched it. (It was on Showtime, which I don't have anymore since finally getting off cable.) It's safe to say that there's nothing really new in it other than odds and ends that have come to light in the sporadic document releases. IOW it's a good compilation of things that have been known by those who follow the case but not by the general public (there being no help from the mainstream media, forever wed to the official story). For me it would be depressing to watch, which is why I didn't. It's been 59 years and justice for JFK is a lost cause if there ever was one.

 

Not sure if we will ever know the full truth, and that would be sad. But I think one thing that is interesting about this "conspiracy theory" compared to many others is that a clear majority of Americans believe Oswald was not acting alone - at least based upon a recent recent poll I saw which is admittedly outdated (2013).

 

I learned three things about the assassination that are unsettling. They could be coincidences, but still unsettling.
1)Oswald worked (probably tangentially) with the CIA in the 1950s with the U2 program.
2)The Secret Service agents assigned to pre-scout Dealey Plaza were hanging out in Jack Ruby’s bar the night before.
3)Lyndon Johnson was sworn in before Kennedy was officially declared dead.

Obviously these could be coincidence, but I found all of them to be unsettling when it comes to believing the “official account.”