Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
The Russian Hare

JFK assassination documents released

36 posts in this topic

Quote

 

More than 3,800 records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy have been released today by the National Archives.

Most of the documents were previously released with parts redacted, and 441 have never been released before. Of those that were previously redacted, some have now had the redactions removed.

Among the materials, which include CIA and FBI records, are transcripts and 17 recordings of interviews with Yuri Nosenko, a former KGB agent who defected in 1964 and claimed he was in charge of the KGB file on Lee Harvey Oswald when Oswald was in the Soviet Union.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cia-fbi-documents-investigation-kennedy-assassination-released/story?id=48817457

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why this is such a mystery anyway. 

If you've ever watched the zapruder film, it is easily seen where the shot that killed him came from. If your husband or wife had just been shot what would your reaction be? Watch the concern on her face, and her attentiveness to him, watch John Connelly's does once his eyes meet hers, then watch the reaction of the people standing close to the car and compare that the reaction of those in the car when the gun goes off. The bullet that killed him came from inside of the car, but men who would distract point to different places to do just that, distract from what really happened. She shot her husband. Why? Well he told us why and who in one of his speeches, he just did not know how when or where it was going to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Christian said:

I've always wondered why this is such a mystery anyway. 

If you've ever watched the zapruder film, it is easily seen where the shot that killed him came from. If your husband or wife had just been shot what would your reaction be? Watch the concern on her face, and her attentiveness to him, watch John Connelly's does once his eyes meet hers, then watch the reaction of the people standing close to the car and compare that the reaction of those in the car when the gun goes off. The bullet that killed him came from inside of the car, but men who would distract point to different places to do just that, distract from what really happened. She shot her husband. Why? Well he told us why and who in one of his speeches, he just did not know how when or where it was going to happen. 

What the Fitzgerald? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 9:20 AM, John Christian said:

I've always wondered why this is such a mystery anyway. 

If you've ever watched the zapruder film, it is easily seen where the shot that killed him came from. If your husband or wife had just been shot what would your reaction be? Watch the concern on her face, and her attentiveness to him, watch John Connelly's does once his eyes meet hers, then watch the reaction of the people standing close to the car and compare that the reaction of those in the car when the gun goes off. The bullet that killed him came from inside of the car, but men who would distract point to different places to do just that, distract from what really happened. She shot her husband. Why? Well he told us why and who in one of his speeches, he just did not know how when or where it was going to happen. 

Where on earth did you see her shoot him?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have to agree with that. Jackie shot JFK? No way, Jose.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory regarding JFK but looking at the comments by people who do hold such an interest, they don't seem to believe there is anything significant in the latest releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 3:30 PM, Colt Storm said:

Where on earth did you see her shoot him?

In the zapruder film it's actually pretty obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Christian said:

In the zapruder film it's actually pretty obvious

We seem to have differing definitions of "obvious".

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Obviousman said:

We seem to have differing definitions of "obvious".

ob·vi·ous
adjective
  1. easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.
     
    Possibly, if this isn't how you'd define obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Christian said:

In the zapruder film it's actually pretty obvious

I have seen the Zapruder film and there is nothing obvious to conclude that he was shot from inside the car let alone shot by Jacke

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Colt Storm said:

I have seen the Zapruder film and there is nothing obvious to conclude that he was shot from inside the car let alone shot by Jacke

Sure there is, watch the reaction of people in the car, and outside of the car. 

Deductive reasoning. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Christian said:

Sure there is, watch the reaction of people in the car, and outside of the car. 

Deductive reasoning. 

 

Sorry but no. That isn't deductive reasoning it's more like definite reaching. You mentioned 

Quote

She shot her husband. Why? Well he told us why and who in one of his speeches, he just did not know how when or where it was going to happen. 

So you are saying he named Jackie as his killer?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, Colt Storm said:

Sorry but no. That isn't deductive reasoning it's more like definite reaching. You mentioned 

So you are saying he named Jackie as his killer?

No, while she pulled the trigger, someone else was pulling the strings. 

Just a few months after his affair with Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn sand happy birthday to him in a very televised event. In front of the world she embarrassed a very proud woman and the president. Jackie went from the queen in the court of Camelot, to just a jester of the court. There would be no divorce granted, being that she had to have a divorce approved through the church, and it just wasn't something that could happen with a man in such high position, there was no way out for her.  With that wound being constantly opened her hatred for him grew. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, this runs contrary to everything we know about what happened....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, John Christian said:

In the zapruder film it's actually pretty obvious

Are your arms tired from this handwaving?  Post some screenshots or animated gifs, annotated to support your claim.  Or are you not up with basic image editing?  If not, I'd suggest you're also very likely not up with basic analysis of any kind, so your claim of 'obvious' is worthless.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Are your arms tired from this handwaving?  Post some screenshots or animated gifs, annotated to support your claim.  Or are you not up with basic image editing?  If not, I'd suggest you're also very likely not up with basic analysis of any kind, so your claim of 'obvious' is worthless.

Nah,  if you're not interested in it and think I'm wrong, but won't even look for yourself, I really don't have a problem with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, John Christian said:

Nah,  if you're not interested in it and think I'm wrong, but won't even look for yourself, I really don't have a problem with it. 

Lame flounce.  Stop wasting grownups time.

 

Added PS.  I'm guessing John has been to the Jack White School of Forensic Analysis... (it's an injoke..  also see next post..)

 

Edited by ChrLzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just to give an example of the sort of terrifyingly bad 'analysis' that gets lapped up by conspiracy theorists, a person by the name of Jack White at one stage bluffed his way into the Select Committee investigating the JFK assassination.  White later also became notorious for doing some ludicrously flawed analysis of Apollo photography..  Here is what happened as the Select Committee rather quickly realised they had an idiot without a clue in front of them.  The comments in square brackets, italicised and labelled as from 'Clavius' are from Jay Windley's website (www.clavius.org).  Jay is well known in the aerospace industries as an engineer, and has much experience in genuine photographic analysis.  Bolding is mine..

In the following rather hilarious excerpt, Jack White falls apart during basic questioning of his 'analysis'..  Mr Goldsmith is from the Select Committee investigating the JFK shooting, while Jack White had claimed to be an image analyst...

Quote

...

Mr. GOLDSMITH: When you measured the object in this photograph, what did you do beyond using the ruler?

Mr. WHITE: This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Mr. GOLDSMITH: Without giving any account to other factors?

Mr. WHITE: That is true. I am not a physicist or any sort of a scientist who could determine anything relating to the perspective. We don't know how close the rifle is to his body. We don't know how close the camera is to the subject, so it would be virtually impossible for just a plain citizen like me to interpret the perspective of this photograph.

[The proper understanding of perspective and the effect it has on images of photographed objects is a basic technique of photographic interpretation, without which little quantitative information can be derived by examining photographs. --Clavius]

Mr. GOLDSMITH: Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?

Mr. WHITE: No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH: Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?

Mr. WHITE: No.

[Forensic photography is the science of photography as it relates to questions of law. It includes the study of photographs used as legal evidence, and the techniques of recording other physical evidence photographically. --Clavius.]

Mr. GOLDSMITH: Have you had any formal training in the study of shadows in photographs?

Mr. WHITE: No.
...
Mr. GOLDSMITH: To what extent, if any, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of an object's tilt on its apparent length in the photograph?

Mr. WHITE: As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing.
...
Mr. GOLDSMITH: When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

[When an object is tilted toward or away from a camera, the camera will render the half of the object which is closer to the camera slightly larger, proportionally, than the half which is farther from the camera. Mr. White is unaware of this basic principle of perspective, and did not account for it in his analysis. --Clavius]

Mr. WHITE: I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically --

Mr. WHITE: What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH: I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry IS?

Mr. WHITE: No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH: I have no further questions. Thank you.

- from Proceedings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. 2, pp. 338-344

Needless to say, Jack White was dismissed and never asked back....  Real forensic photographic analysis is a science that requires the use of careful observation, logic, maths and geometry.  Wild-ass guesses by folks who won't support their claims are worthless.  In fact, far worse than useless when the persons making the claims pretend to have knowledge that they very obviously do NOT.

That is why handwaved claims like those above should be ignored.  I'd be happy to look at a proper analysis, and if it's RIGHT, I'll verify it and explain and SHOW exactly why.  But if it's wrong I'll also explain and show why.  Now let's face it, if John was genuine, surely he would leap at that chance, because if he can show me up with better knowledge and back up his claims properly (as any real analyst would..) - well, he'd be a UM hero and I'd have to hide my face in shame....

So John, not up for it?  Surely the thought of that is tempting...

 

Edited by ChrLzs
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Christian said:

 

 

No, while she pulled the trigger, someone else was pulling the strings. 

Just a few months after his affair with Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn sand happy birthday to him in a very televised event. In front of the world she embarrassed a very proud woman and the president. Jackie went from the queen in the court of Camelot, to just a jester of the court. There would be no divorce granted, being that she had to have a divorce approved through the church, and it just wasn't something that could happen with a man in such high position, there was no way out for her.  With that wound being constantly opened her hatred for him grew. 

 

I believe in giving everyone their opinion, but this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely nothing obvious or evident to back up your theory.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Colt Storm said:

I believe in giving everyone their opinion, but this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely nothing obvious or evident to back up your theory.  

There is actually plenty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Christian said:

There is actually plenty 

Then let me ask you a question, are you basing this theory off of the Zapruder film alone,  or do you have some other viable proof to back up your claim?  You do realize that what you are suggesting isn't possible given the evidence  of the trajectory of the bullet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Colt Storm said:

Then let me ask you a question, are you basing this theory off of the Zapruder film alone,  or do you have some other viable proof to back up your claim?  You do realize that what you are suggesting isn't possible given the evidence  of the trajectory of the bullet? 

What evidence of the trajectory of the bullet? You don't mean frames 313-315 where you actually see the trajectory do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Any questions?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 11:50 PM, John Christian said:

I've always wondered why this is such a mystery anyway. 

If you've ever watched the zapruder film, it is easily seen where the shot that killed him came from. If your husband or wife had just been shot what would your reaction be? Watch the concern on her face, and her attentiveness to him, watch John Connelly's does once his eyes meet hers, then watch the reaction of the people standing close to the car and compare that the reaction of those in the car when the gun goes off. The bullet that killed him came from inside of the car, but men who would distract point to different places to do just that, distract from what really happened. She shot her husband. Why? Well he told us why and who in one of his speeches, he just did not know how when or where it was going to happen. 

I've always wondered why people make up such complete crap.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

... Any questions?

No further questions on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I've always wondered why people make up such complete crap.

So people like me sit here reading it:D

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.