7 ms·

Additional JFK Assassination Documents Released

88 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

runesoerensen 9y ago
Press release https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-05 https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-05
gitpusher 9y ago
Cool. Will wait for a news outlet (i.e. someone else) to go through the documents and write up a summary, though ;)
- wslh 9y ago
  How to Read the JFK Assassination Files: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559312
- monochromatic 9y ago
  Nobody more trustworthy than the news media!
  - grzm 9y ago
    While I understand where you're coming from, I know I personally don't have the requisite background in that area of history to be able to properly interpret the documents myself. Of course, this doesn't mean one has to uncritically accept anyone else's interpretation. Nor does it mean anyone else should feel the need to lean on someone else's interpretation! The more eyes, the better!
  - senectus1 9y ago
    especially that new one that popped up recently.. what it called? Kafe News?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jMyles 9y ago
Note that this is not the entire collection of documents (some number of pages, perhaps 300, have been withheld - reports so far vary on this).
jMyles 9y ago
FWIW, I think it will be more surprising if evidence emerges which buttresses the "lone nut" theory than the "conspiracy" theory, which is far more plausible in the first place. There are a few items that may appear in these collections that are relevant today for reasons other than their connection to the murder of a sitting President: * The particularities of Operation Mongoose - which of course was denied for years in official statements - may still be occurring today without general public knowledge. In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences. * Oswald's trip to Mexico City (and the other various "sightings" of "Oswald" in the Fall of 1963) may give us clues about the kinds of tactics that are employed when someone is being setup to take the fall for an act. I can definitely imagine similar patterns being employed to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of large-scale cyber attacks in the years to come. I think that one of the most important things to come out of this is a reminder that these events have shaped a part of American history. It's a good time to talk to your kids and your parents about the murder of JFK if you haven't already.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences. That's like the least astonishing Cold War covert op I can think of. This was the time of generals who though they could levitate and walk through walls, for goodness sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
  - jMyles 9y ago
    I agree that it's not terribly astonishing - maybe that was a poor choice of word. The reason that I'm given pause isn't that it's a huge surprise, but for its implications today: with state influence over agriculture, including via protection for companies like Monsanto via favorable IP law, I think it might be (but might not be) somewhat more relevant today than other aspects of Operation Mongoose.
yeukhon 9y ago
I am still unsure. I remember there was a talk circulating around the Internet, questioning how many people were actually in the car during the JFK assassination. Is that a fake news?
- excitom 9y ago
  Well, there are lots of pictures and film of the event, so unless someone is hiding in the trunk I'd say that's fake.
retox 9y ago
Thank you for your request to download the 2017 release of JFK assassination files. Completely download all 11 files to the same directory then open jfk.zip to unzip all. Download times may be significant due to the large size. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.zip https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z01 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z02 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z03 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z04 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z05 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z06 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z07 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z08 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z09 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z10 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...
- jakeogh 9y ago
  Criminals love their gang signals. This is the work of a friend of mine, Bob Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ When I saw it years ago, I had to verify it myself. Note the odds calculation is wrong due to a rounding error. The correct odds are: 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 = 1 / 5,153,632 Details: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ
Overtonwindow 9y ago
I believe it was Oswald. After believing it was more than one for a long time, maybe two independent shooters, unaware of the other. I really studied a lot and realized it could only have been Oswald. A most unfortunate fluke of history.
- jMyles 9y ago
  Thank you for your candor. I always have the same three questions about Oswald for people who subscribe to this theory: 1) What happened in his last three years of his life that took him from Maggie's Drawers to the skill required to execute such incredible precision shooting? Do you believe that he dedicated himself to intense rifle training during this time without anyone knowing? 2) Why didn't he fire as the motorcade approached on Houston? 3) We now know from video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds before the shooting took place. Why not? Why wasn't he watching his target during this time? Even if he wanted to hide the rifle for that moment? Bonus question: have you ever tried to hit a target at this range? A moving target? Without having your rifle in a ready position 5 seconds prior? It takes years and years of training to get this good. For my part, I'd certainly vote to acquit Oswald based on what we know today if I were consider this case as a juror. We have video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds prior, and witnesses to establish his whereabouts just 3 minutes later on the first floor (where he was calmly drinking a coke, not out of breath from having darted down six flights of stairs). But if it was him, this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship and escape.
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    As a trained long range shooter, may I observe: such incredible precision shooting? this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship It's not incredible. With some decent practice, it's not hard. The limo was hardly moving laterally from that position, and not receding fast. Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same. You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded There's no reason to believe Oswald couldn't/didn't shoot JFK. A SS agent may have added to the confusion with a negligent discharge though.
staunch 9y ago
Trump was about to release all the files and then the CIA recommended he not do that. The CIA also wrote this nice memo for Trump: > "I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted" on the records, the memo said. "At the same time, executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice -- today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation's security." You've gotta love the "I have no choice" wording... From the best book on this topic, JFK and the Unspeakable: > The book's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus > The book highlights the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the Central Intelligence Agency's attempt to entrap Kennedy into a full-scale US invasion of Cuba. Citing Daniel Schorr's conclusion that "In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed", the book argues that the result of this operation was Kennedy's avowed intention "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." > The forced resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles and several deputies served notice that this statement might be followed through. The book describes Kennedy's conflict with the military, including over the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (ratified by the Senate in September 1963), and a back-channel to Fidel Castro in September 1963, via William Atwood, aimed at normalising relations, and National Security Action Memorandum 263 (beginning withdrawal from Vietnam). > The book also cites an April 1962 confrontation with the US steel industry, led by U.S. Steel, which together with five other steel companies declared a price increase shortly after an agreement had been brokered to avoid them, in order to control inflation. The Kennedy administration raided corporate offices, issued subpoenas, and tasked the Defense Department with overseas marketing of its steel. Shortly after the steel industry backed down, Henry Luce's Fortune published an editorial, headlined "Steel: The Ides of April", stating that the price rise had been conceived in political terms as a means to either damage the President's credibility, or to unite the business world against him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable Curtis LeMay called JFK an appeaser to his face, and accused him of endangering America's safety. https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/ https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Cri...
nameisu 9y ago
i opened the first file and could not understand the handwriting lol
watertom 9y ago
Here is what I believe. After Oswald's first shot Kennedy's limo, and the chase vehicles all hit the gas The chase vehicle directly behind Kennedy had FBI agents with M-16's, with the safety off, standard protocol. There is a picture of the car directly behind Kennedy, where the FBI agent has his M-16 resting on the top the windshield angled slightly downward, the chase vehicle as a convertible as well. When all the cars hit the gas to get out after the first Oswald shots I think the agent holding that M-16 accidentally pulled the trigger when he was knocked off balance when the car accelerated. That shot was the head shot was the kill shot. The bullet from kennedy's skull was a different type and smaller caliber than what came from Oswald's gun. The reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI agent, telling the American public that an FBI agent accidentally did a head shot on the president wasn't something anyone wanted, plus the shot that Oswald hit Kennedy with would have killed him anyway.
- escape_goat 9y ago
  Colt (née ArmaLite) AR-15. It seems unlikely that the President's head would have remained intact in that circumstances, or that the medical examiners would otherwise mistake the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range for those of a 5.56 mm round point blank.
  - terminado 9y ago
    It seems unlikely[...] That's not a particularly substantive comment. Got anything to back up what seems to be the case, according to your opinion? the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range Compared to: those of a 5.56 mm round point blank The behavior of either bullet on a human head, given the circumstances, won't be radically different. Hydrostatic shock, inducing spin on the slug, upon entering the cranium, is going to pop the skull open on exit, and everything in between is going to be shredded hamburger. The head wouldn't be ripped clean off. It wasn't a 12 gauge shotgun inside the mouth. These weren't explosive shells. They were ball rounds.
    - escape_goat 9y ago
      It's true that my response would be greatly improved had I done the math comparing the kinetic energy of the bullets in the two scenarios. I relied on reports of the results of M-16 shots to the human head at similar distances. However, having done further reading on the matter, it has become clear that no such bullet as we are discussing actually struck the President's skull. The bullet struck the President's first thoracic vertebrae and exited from his throat. So I do not feel all that badly about the degree of diligence that I invested in my reply.
diggernet 9y ago
I recently read an interesting argument that Oswald actually had a grudge against the Governor, not the President. So it wasn't really an impossibly good shot -- he missed. Sadly, do not recall where I saw that. Links, anyone?
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  Brings to mind the Zangara shooting, where the alleged target was the Mayor of Chicago and not President-elect FDR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
- diggernet 9y ago
  Ah, was probably this: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assassination-target-20161122-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assass...
chiefalchemist 9y ago
These are what? Documents compiled by various intelligence community agencies? All of which are versed and comfortable with propaganda, misinformation, etc. On top of that, some info has (allegedly) been withheld. So now we must ask: 1) Why now? 2) Why by Trump? 3) If this release has a political agenda (and certainly it does) then who might win from its release? Who might lose? And what current issue will be ignored while the MSM and the proles are distracted by this smoke screen?
- cheald 9y ago
  1) Because the 1992 JFK Records Act put a 25-year timer on their release. The deadline for that release was...you guessed it, October 26, 2017. 2) Because Trump is president on October 26, 2017, 25 years after the passage of the JFK Records Act. 3) Irrelevant because of the above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa...
- codefreakxff 9y ago
  Trump has nothing to do with this. The records were sealed and scheduled to be released today a long, long time ago. There is no political agenda. waves hand Move along.
- chiaro 9y ago
  They've been slated for release now for ages, long before Trump. He has little to do with it.
- enzanki_ars 9y ago
  Answer for 1, 2, and 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa... (TL;DR - On October 26, 1992, a law was passed requiring the release of the files on October 26, 2017)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 9y ago
peacetreefrog 9y ago
Not knowing much about it, but taking an outside-in view here. You have a guy (Oswald) with a rifle and telescopic sight, aiming and shooting and purposely trying to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed. Why is it so hard for people to believe Oswald was successful? Occam's razor. Bayes theorem. Seems incredibly unlikely that there was a second shooter or accidental fluke shot from a secret service agent that just happened to occur right when Oswald was intentionally and purposefully doing it himself.
- bardolemew 9y ago
  Is that really what you see here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10
- jMyles 9y ago
  It's not at all clear that Oswald was even involved. It's far more likely that he was on the first floor the entire time, where we was seen minutes before and minutes after the shooting. We now have video evidence showing that he was not in the window just 5 seconds before the shooting began. He was seen on the first floor no more than 3 minutes after the shooting took place, and the police officer who saw him insisted that he was not out of breath and did not appear to have just run down six flights of stairs. The chain of evidence for the bullets is flimsy. And perhaps most importantly: there is no evidence that Oswald was capable of doing this shooting. He was a mediocre shot as a marine, and no evidence that he dedicated himself to long-range training in the intervening years. The rifle was not in good shape, and wasn't a very good rifle to begin with. I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, though I also admit that I'm not sure what exactly did happen on the plaza that day. edit: Thinking about those downvoting without commenting - just one thing I want to implore: in our system of justice, we demand proof of built beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that there are dozens of reasonable doubts about Oswald's involvement; I have outlined three (what we know of his whereabouts during the events in question, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the matter of whether he was even capable of the act). If you honestly think that you can look someone against whom there is similar evidence and pronounce them guilty, I'd love to hear your comments on the matter and what specifically you think proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This man died without getting a trial; we owe it to our justice system to take a measured approach about the evidence against him.
jayess 9y ago
I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. It took me over a year to read on and off. It's a national treasure and I wish it could be made freely available online. It's over a thousand pages and includes a CD with thousands more pages in footnotes and endnotes. I was a die hard conspiracy believer because I grew up in a household where my mom lived through the assassination and she had nearly every conspiracy book available around the house. After reading Bugliosi's book I am absolutely now convinced that Oswald did it alone. Bugliosi's book absolutely devastates all of the conspiracy theories. I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. There is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Full stop. If you search around for interviews online with Bugliosi, you can get a feel for the breadth and depth of his work.
- arkitaip 9y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation. I found this clip that summarizes Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.
  - jayess 9y ago
    Thank you, that sums up a small part of the story very well. One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book. Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
    - mhneu 9y ago
      Bugliosi also wrote a good book on the OJ case that similarly cuts through the fluff and lays out the most plausible theory (that OJ did it).
Bromskloss 9y ago
Why were they withheld?
- mhneu 9y ago
  My guess is that the CIA knew more about Oswald's radicalization then has been previously disclosed. The guy spent three years in Russia, had a Russian wife, and had some contact with Cuba. Almost certainly he had some contact with Russian and/or Cuban intelligence. If the CIA knew about that and failed to stop Oswald, they might have some incentive to keep their records classified.

88 points by runesoerensen 9y ago

Press release https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-05 https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-05

gitpusher 9y ago

Cool. Will wait for a news outlet (i.e. someone else) to go through the documents and write up a summary, though ;)

wslh 9y ago
How to Read the JFK Assassination Files: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15559312
monochromatic 9y ago
Nobody more trustworthy than the news media!
- grzm 9y ago
  While I understand where you're coming from, I know I personally don't have the requisite background in that area of history to be able to properly interpret the documents myself. Of course, this doesn't mean one has to uncritically accept anyone else's interpretation. Nor does it mean anyone else should feel the need to lean on someone else's interpretation! The more eyes, the better!
- senectus1 9y ago
  especially that new one that popped up recently.. what it called? Kafe News?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jMyles 9y ago

Note that this is not the entire collection of documents (some number of pages, perhaps 300, have been withheld - reports so far vary on this).

jMyles 9y ago

FWIW, I think it will be more surprising if evidence emerges which buttresses the "lone nut" theory than the "conspiracy" theory, which is far more plausible in the first place. There are a few items that may appear in these collections that are relevant today for reasons other than their connection to the murder of a sitting President: * The particularities of Operation Mongoose - which of course was denied for years in official statements - may still be occurring today without general public knowledge. In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences. * Oswald's trip to Mexico City (and the other various "sightings" of "Oswald" in the Fall of 1963) may give us clues about the kinds of tactics that are employed when someone is being setup to take the fall for an act. I can definitely imagine similar patterns being employed to divert attention from the actual perpetrators of large-scale cyber attacks in the years to come. I think that one of the most important things to come out of this is a reminder that these events have shaped a part of American history. It's a good time to talk to your kids and your parents about the murder of JFK if you haven't already.

ceejayoz 9y ago
> In particular, I'm somewhat astonished to find out that the US Government apparently developed or intended to develop agents to disrupt agriculture which would appear as though they were natural occurrences. That's like the least astonishing Cold War covert op I can think of. This was the time of generals who though they could levitate and walk through walls, for goodness sake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
- jMyles 9y ago
  I agree that it's not terribly astonishing - maybe that was a poor choice of word. The reason that I'm given pause isn't that it's a huge surprise, but for its implications today: with state influence over agriculture, including via protection for companies like Monsanto via favorable IP law, I think it might be (but might not be) somewhat more relevant today than other aspects of Operation Mongoose.

yeukhon 9y ago

I am still unsure. I remember there was a talk circulating around the Internet, questioning how many people were actually in the car during the JFK assassination. Is that a fake news?

excitom 9y ago
Well, there are lots of pictures and film of the event, so unless someone is hiding in the trunk I'd say that's fake.

retox 9y ago

Thank you for your request to download the 2017 release of JFK assassination files. Completely download all 11 files to the same directory then open jfk.zip to unzip all. Download times may be significant due to the large size. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.zip https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z01 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z02 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z03 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z04 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z05 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z06 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z07 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z08 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z09 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk.z10 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/zip/jfk...

jakeogh 9y ago
Criminals love their gang signals. This is the work of a friend of mine, Bob Fischer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-EBGYF8XLQ When I saw it years ago, I had to verify it myself. Note the odds calculation is wrong due to a rounding error. The correct odds are: 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 x 1/22 = 1 / 5,153,632 Details: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/jkcNkNHEwy67s6Gsubd3KQ

Overtonwindow 9y ago

I believe it was Oswald. After believing it was more than one for a long time, maybe two independent shooters, unaware of the other. I really studied a lot and realized it could only have been Oswald. A most unfortunate fluke of history.

jMyles 9y ago
Thank you for your candor. I always have the same three questions about Oswald for people who subscribe to this theory: 1) What happened in his last three years of his life that took him from Maggie's Drawers to the skill required to execute such incredible precision shooting? Do you believe that he dedicated himself to intense rifle training during this time without anyone knowing? 2) Why didn't he fire as the motorcade approached on Houston? 3) We now know from video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds before the shooting took place. Why not? Why wasn't he watching his target during this time? Even if he wanted to hide the rifle for that moment? Bonus question: have you ever tried to hit a target at this range? A moving target? Without having your rifle in a ready position 5 seconds prior? It takes years and years of training to get this good. For my part, I'd certainly vote to acquit Oswald based on what we know today if I were consider this case as a juror. We have video evidence that he was not in the window 5 seconds prior, and witnesses to establish his whereabouts just 3 minutes later on the first floor (where he was calmly drinking a coke, not out of breath from having darted down six flights of stairs). But if it was him, this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship and escape.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  As a trained long range shooter, may I observe: such incredible precision shooting? this was an incredible, astonishing feat of marksmanship It's not incredible. With some decent practice, it's not hard. The limo was hardly moving laterally from that position, and not receding fast. Numerous experts have recreated the shot, and concluded the same. You can even try it yourself from Oswald's POV (if you can find a copy, and find old hardware to run it on) in this faithful simulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded There's no reason to believe Oswald couldn't/didn't shoot JFK. A SS agent may have added to the confusion with a negligent discharge though.

staunch 9y ago

Trump was about to release all the files and then the CIA recommended he not do that. The CIA also wrote this nice memo for Trump: > "I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted" on the records, the memo said. "At the same time, executive departments and agencies have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice -- today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our nation's security." You've gotta love the "I have no choice" wording... From the best book on this topic, JFK and the Unspeakable: > The book's central thesis is that Kennedy was a cold warrior who turned to peace-making, and that as a result he was killed by his own security apparatus > The book highlights the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the Central Intelligence Agency's attempt to entrap Kennedy into a full-scale US invasion of Cuba. Citing Daniel Schorr's conclusion that "In effect, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed", the book argues that the result of this operation was Kennedy's avowed intention "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." > The forced resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles and several deputies served notice that this statement might be followed through. The book describes Kennedy's conflict with the military, including over the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (ratified by the Senate in September 1963), and a back-channel to Fidel Castro in September 1963, via William Atwood, aimed at normalising relations, and National Security Action Memorandum 263 (beginning withdrawal from Vietnam). > The book also cites an April 1962 confrontation with the US steel industry, led by U.S. Steel, which together with five other steel companies declared a price increase shortly after an agreement had been brokered to avoid them, in order to control inflation. The Kennedy administration raided corporate offices, issued subpoenas, and tasked the Defense Department with overseas marketing of its steel. Shortly after the steel industry backed down, Henry Luce's Fortune published an editorial, headlined "Steel: The Ides of April", stating that the price rise had been conceived in political terms as a means to either damage the President's credibility, or to unite the business world against him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_and_the_Unspeakable Curtis LeMay called JFK an appeaser to his face, and accused him of endangering America's safety. https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/ https://jfk14thday.com/bad-appeasement-munich/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#Cuban_Missile_Cri...

nameisu 9y ago

i opened the first file and could not understand the handwriting lol

watertom 9y ago

Here is what I believe. After Oswald's first shot Kennedy's limo, and the chase vehicles all hit the gas The chase vehicle directly behind Kennedy had FBI agents with M-16's, with the safety off, standard protocol. There is a picture of the car directly behind Kennedy, where the FBI agent has his M-16 resting on the top the windshield angled slightly downward, the chase vehicle as a convertible as well. When all the cars hit the gas to get out after the first Oswald shots I think the agent holding that M-16 accidentally pulled the trigger when he was knocked off balance when the car accelerated. That shot was the head shot was the kill shot. The bullet from kennedy's skull was a different type and smaller caliber than what came from Oswald's gun. The reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI agent, telling the American public that an FBI agent accidentally did a head shot on the president wasn't something anyone wanted, plus the shot that Oswald hit Kennedy with would have killed him anyway.

escape_goat 9y ago
Colt (née ArmaLite) AR-15. It seems unlikely that the President's head would have remained intact in that circumstances, or that the medical examiners would otherwise mistake the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range for those of a 5.56 mm round point blank.
- terminado 9y ago
  It seems unlikely[...] That's not a particularly substantive comment. Got anything to back up what seems to be the case, according to your opinion? the energy effects of a 6.5 mm round at range Compared to: those of a 5.56 mm round point blank The behavior of either bullet on a human head, given the circumstances, won't be radically different. Hydrostatic shock, inducing spin on the slug, upon entering the cranium, is going to pop the skull open on exit, and everything in between is going to be shredded hamburger. The head wouldn't be ripped clean off. It wasn't a 12 gauge shotgun inside the mouth. These weren't explosive shells. They were ball rounds.
  - escape_goat 9y ago
    It's true that my response would be greatly improved had I done the math comparing the kinetic energy of the bullets in the two scenarios. I relied on reports of the results of M-16 shots to the human head at similar distances. However, having done further reading on the matter, it has become clear that no such bullet as we are discussing actually struck the President's skull. The bullet struck the President's first thoracic vertebrae and exited from his throat. So I do not feel all that badly about the degree of diligence that I invested in my reply.

diggernet 9y ago

I recently read an interesting argument that Oswald actually had a grudge against the Governor, not the President. So it wasn't really an impossibly good shot -- he missed. Sadly, do not recall where I saw that. Links, anyone?

Apocryphon 9y ago
Brings to mind the Zangara shooting, where the alleged target was the Mayor of Chicago and not President-elect FDR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara
diggernet 9y ago
Ah, was probably this: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assassination-target-20161122-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reston-jfk-assass...

chiefalchemist 9y ago

These are what? Documents compiled by various intelligence community agencies? All of which are versed and comfortable with propaganda, misinformation, etc. On top of that, some info has (allegedly) been withheld. So now we must ask: 1) Why now? 2) Why by Trump? 3) If this release has a political agenda (and certainly it does) then who might win from its release? Who might lose? And what current issue will be ignored while the MSM and the proles are distracted by this smoke screen?

cheald 9y ago
1) Because the 1992 JFK Records Act put a 25-year timer on their release. The deadline for that release was...you guessed it, October 26, 2017. 2) Because Trump is president on October 26, 2017, 25 years after the passage of the JFK Records Act. 3) Irrelevant because of the above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa...
codefreakxff 9y ago
Trump has nothing to do with this. The records were sealed and scheduled to be released today a long, long time ago. There is no political agenda. waves hand Move along.
chiaro 9y ago
They've been slated for release now for ages, long before Trump. He has little to do with it.
enzanki_ars 9y ago
Answer for 1, 2, and 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assa... (TL;DR - On October 26, 1992, a law was passed requiring the release of the files on October 26, 2017)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
9y ago

peacetreefrog 9y ago

Not knowing much about it, but taking an outside-in view here. You have a guy (Oswald) with a rifle and telescopic sight, aiming and shooting and purposely trying to kill Kennedy. Kennedy was shot and killed. Why is it so hard for people to believe Oswald was successful? Occam's razor. Bayes theorem. Seems incredibly unlikely that there was a second shooter or accidental fluke shot from a secret service agent that just happened to occur right when Oswald was intentionally and purposefully doing it himself.

bardolemew 9y ago
Is that really what you see here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&pbjreload=10
jMyles 9y ago
It's not at all clear that Oswald was even involved. It's far more likely that he was on the first floor the entire time, where we was seen minutes before and minutes after the shooting. We now have video evidence showing that he was not in the window just 5 seconds before the shooting began. He was seen on the first floor no more than 3 minutes after the shooting took place, and the police officer who saw him insisted that he was not out of breath and did not appear to have just run down six flights of stairs. The chain of evidence for the bullets is flimsy. And perhaps most importantly: there is no evidence that Oswald was capable of doing this shooting. He was a mediocre shot as a marine, and no evidence that he dedicated himself to long-range training in the intervening years. The rifle was not in good shape, and wasn't a very good rifle to begin with. I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, though I also admit that I'm not sure what exactly did happen on the plaza that day. edit: Thinking about those downvoting without commenting - just one thing I want to implore: in our system of justice, we demand proof of built beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that there are dozens of reasonable doubts about Oswald's involvement; I have outlined three (what we know of his whereabouts during the events in question, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the matter of whether he was even capable of the act). If you honestly think that you can look someone against whom there is similar evidence and pronounce them guilty, I'd love to hear your comments on the matter and what specifically you think proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This man died without getting a trial; we owe it to our justice system to take a measured approach about the evidence against him.

jayess 9y ago

I strongly recommend the book "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. It took me over a year to read on and off. It's a national treasure and I wish it could be made freely available online. It's over a thousand pages and includes a CD with thousands more pages in footnotes and endnotes. I was a die hard conspiracy believer because I grew up in a household where my mom lived through the assassination and she had nearly every conspiracy book available around the house. After reading Bugliosi's book I am absolutely now convinced that Oswald did it alone. Bugliosi's book absolutely devastates all of the conspiracy theories. I can confidently say that these files will uncover nothing to "prove" otherwise. There is no evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed the president. Full stop. If you search around for interviews online with Bugliosi, you can get a feel for the breadth and depth of his work.

arkitaip 9y ago
Thanks for the recommendation. I found this clip that summarizes Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhA54xrPTOE EDIT: I love how conspiracy theorists are downvoting my comment for simply linking to a video clip. Seems like this post has flushed out every nutjob on HN.
- jayess 9y ago
  Thank you, that sums up a small part of the story very well. One thing I've learned is that the conspiracy folks lie and frequently take statements out of context. I insist on primary sources. There is so much BS out there in favor of a conspiracy that it's almost hopeless to counter it all. Bugliosi basically does, but it's a shame that few people will read his book. Another bit of compelling evidence that the president was shot from behind (BTW, ALL of the ballistic trajectories match perfectly with the Oswald window of the school book depository), is this stabilized zapruder film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc
  - mhneu 9y ago
    Bugliosi also wrote a good book on the OJ case that similarly cuts through the fluff and lays out the most plausible theory (that OJ did it).

Bromskloss 9y ago

Why were they withheld?

mhneu 9y ago
My guess is that the CIA knew more about Oswald's radicalization then has been previously disclosed. The guy spent three years in Russia, had a Russian wife, and had some contact with Cuba. Almost certainly he had some contact with Russian and/or Cuban intelligence. If the CIA knew about that and failed to stop Oswald, they might have some incentive to keep their records classified.