What Are the Correct Questions to Ask About the JFK Assassination?

[Robert Prudhomme]

"The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic)."

Even if a bullet completely disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder in the top of JFK's right lung, this cloud of metal powder would still show up on an x-ray.

There was no metal powder in the flechettes developed at Ft. Detrick.

Does anyone but me find it odd that the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, maintyained to the ARRB that JFK's lungs had been removed before he was able to take chest x-rays of JFK, and that only a handful of personnel were present when they were removed?

Sounds like Sibert got played just like everyone else.

He got played by Killion at the FBI Lab who said the Magic Bullet was coming in from Dallas.

This does not in any way diminish the possibility JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

You are like a broken record, Cliff. If you can produce hard, tangible evidence of even ONE blood soluble bullet or flechette, it would go a long ways to making people believe in them.

[Cliff Varnell]

"The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic)."

Even if a bullet completely disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder in the top of JFK's right lung, this cloud of metal powder would still show up on an x-ray.

There was no metal powder in the flechettes developed at Ft. Detrick.

Does anyone but me find it odd that the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, maintyained to the ARRB that JFK's lungs had been removed before he was able to take chest x-rays of JFK, and that only a handful of personnel were present when they were removed?

Sounds like Sibert got played just like everyone else.

He got played by Killion at the FBI Lab who said the Magic Bullet was coming in from Dallas.

This does not in any way diminish the possibility JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

You are like a broken record, Cliff. If you can produce hard, tangible evidence of even ONE blood soluble bullet or flechette, it would go a long ways to making people believe in them.

It's not my problem you are unable to grasp the information in these testimonies.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Edited March 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Correct Questions:

What did the men who plotted the murder of JFK need to know about Lee Harvey Oswald?

What did the men who plotted the murder of Oswald need to know about the assassination of JFK other than time and place?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff @ post #168 -- Excellent questions.

As to your first question, I say, not much if anything. The framing of Oswald could have been a separate, segregated operation.

As to your second question, I imagine the killers would need to know [a] cover stories, escape routes, [c] how they were being compensated, [d] the plan of attack, if there was one (I believe there was), [e] their weapons, [f] the day's weather forecast, [g] agreed-upon signals and communications -- the usual stuff.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff @ post #168 -- Excellent questions.

As to your first question, I say, not much if anything. The framing of Oswald could have been a separate, segregated operation.

As to your second question, I imagine the killers would need to know [a] cover stories, escape routes, [c] how they were being compensated, [d] the plan of attack, if there was one (I believe there was), [e] their weapons, [f] the day's weather forecast, [g] agreed-upon signals and communications -- the usual stuff.

I've always been intrigued by the Krulak/Prouty ID of Ed Lansdale in one of the tramp photos.

If Lansdale were in on the murder of JFK there seems no way he'd be hanging out in Dealey a couple of hours later.

But if Lansdale was part of the operation tasked with killing Oswald soon after Kennedy's demise it makes sense he'd be cleaning Dealey of back up patsies.

If Charles Harrelson and Howard Hunt were backup-patsy-tramps it fits their career arch since Harrelson was perhaps a patsy for the murder of Judge Wood, and Hunt a patsy for Watergate.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff,

The suited guy passing the tramps is suspicious, IMO. The tramps are suspicious. The DPD is suspicious.

What do these photos tell us? I believe, nothing.

They are records of facts on 11-22-63. There are many other such records.

Could be wrong.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Question: Was there an Oswald kill-team?

It's argued that Oswald, having been set up or otherwise framed for JFK's murder, had to be killed, so there would be no trial where the truth might come out. And because of this, there must have been a team assigned to kill Oswald, which failed to carry out its mission. Some argue the team failed in its mission when J.D. Tippit, assigned to kill Oswald, was killed by Oswald instead. The argument is further that when the kill-team failed in its mission, Jack Ruby was recruited to do the deed.

Here's what I think: The key post-assassination events were the (unwarranted in my view) arrest and charging of Marina's husband for both J.D. Tippit's and JFK's deaths. Stop right there. At this point, the DPD and millions of Americans want to short-circuit the justice system and just kill Marina's husband. What better kill team than the DPD and millions of Americans?

Oswald was killed on November 24. If Ruby had failed, someone else would have attempted to take Oswald's life IMO. Oswald would have gone from an odd duck to a sitting duck. The U.S. Supreme Court was then showing every sign of protecting criminal defendants' rights in state court. Giddeon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) had just then been decided, and many might have figured Oswald needed to be killed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

I think the plotters bet, and bet wisely, on this. And let nature take its course.

No kill-team, IMO.

[Jon G. Tidd]

A correct question about Oswald: What did (does) Marina think about her husband?

She was willing to trash him before the Warren Commission. This is understandable.

I understand that more recently, Marina has expressed the view that her husband didn't kill JFK.

[David Andrews]

Forgive me for not having the reference at hand to back this up, but Marina once commented that her husband was like two different men.

Some of her Warren Commission answers seem to have a double-entendre value, no pun intended.

Edited April 8, 2015 by David Andrews

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Andrews,

If you find the reference to Marina's statement about her husband's being two different men, please let me know. Thanks.

[Michael Clark]

On 1/16/2015 at 8:14 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

David,

My question is, does the factual record support clearly that the person history knows as Oswald wrote the writing known as C.E. 1?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_1.pdf

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0021a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_1.pdf

I would Say that LHO did not write CE 1, If LHO wrote the letter requesting citizenship in Russia. This letter was handed to Clinton by Yeltsin in 1992; assuming I have the facts straight.

 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Gerry Simone]

On 3/14/2015 at 5:01 PM, Jon G. Tidd said:

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

In other words, Oswald was framed knowing that the investigative or intelligence agencies at the institutional level could not dig deeper because of a) past dealings by those agencies with Oswald and b ) Oswald's possible intelligence ties, forcing both of them to cover their ass?

What about also framing Oswald because they might dupe everyone ELSE into thinking Castro or the Soviets were behind it too, thereby drumming up support for a military response?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Gerry Simone said:

In other words, Oswald was framed knowing that the investigative or intelligence agencies at the institutional level could not dig deeper because of a) past dealings by those agencies with Oswald and b ) Oswald's possible intelligence ties, forcing both of them to cover their ass?

What about also framing Oswald because they might dupe everyone ELSE into thinking Castro or the Soviets were behind it too, thereby drumming up support for a military response?

If Oswald had been killed early in the afternoon 11/22/63 Castro was set up to take the fall.

[Gerry Simone]

9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If Oswald had been killed early in the afternoon 11/22/63 Castro was set up to take the fall.

Scary thought.  

Just wondering if LBJ and the WC really knew that Oswald was purported to be a Communist and not take the bait about foreign enemies behind the assassination, or if they thought he could've been directed by Cuba or the Soviets but that they did not want to encourage WWIII and concluded lone misfit instead.  The former would mean they are tacit colluders if not accessories.  The latter is more of a national security cover-up.

[Alberto Miatello]

Your first question: 1) What was the nature of JFK's skull according to JFK's autopsists?

A truly "Socratic" method (i.e. maieutics = art to let the truth emerge through questions, withouth any suggestive intervention by the teacher) should simply put the students in a position to avoid biased  partial/misleading  interpretations of facts.

And yet, as we all know, unfortunately Bethesda's autopsists were not so reliable, because they were military personnell (subject to military discipline and codes, superior orders, etc.)  , whose statements in many points contradicted those by doctors and nurses of Parkland Hospital, who were the first inspecting the injuries, a few minutes after the shooting.

However, as Dr. Aguilar noted, at least 21 persons (doctors, technicians, FBI agents, Secret Service Agents, morticians, etc.) of Bethesda confirmed what Parkland doctors said  about the injuries to the head of JFK = a large occipital gap, and a smaller temporal wound to the right. Anyway, mortician Robinson, who was the last handling JFK body and touching his head for funerals, was adamant in saying that the large gap was JUST  in the rear, the top of his skull was undamaged.

So, probably the best "socratic" question could be: 1) After reading what Parkland and Bethesda doctors wrote and said , what's your opinion on the injuries to the head of President Kennedy?