Yet, this event is extremely fascinating, and I will suggest that it is particularly addictive, if you begin to follow the yarn on any side. There are just so many unanswered questions, so many mysterious things surrounding the case, both leading up to the actual event, and following it. People seem to get very passionate on this issue. After watching endless videos, reading numerous articles and posts, and getting more acclimated with the particulars surrounding the case, I can begin to appreciate more and more how this could be an issue that raises blood pressure. Depending on what you believe, it can be a very heated debate, with a lot of finger-pointing and frustration towards the other side, which can seem willfully blind, deaf, and dumb to what you consider the truth, whether you believe it was Oswald, and Oswald alone, or if it was some kind of a conspiracy (and there are obviously debates about who was behind the conspiracy, with various different theories floating about).
It gets intense. Obviously, it was a moment in history that completely absorbed the nation, albeit in a tragic way. It was the death of not only a President, but of a golden era in American history. The government came up with an official account, the Warren Report. Later, in the late 197'0's a congressional panel found that the opposite of the previously official account was true, that it was likely a conspiracy. There was a trial where the issue of a conspiracy was raised. The man on trial was acquitted, but the charges of some kind of conspiracy remained. Many television shows have been devoted to it, countless books have explored it, and debates continue to rage, obviously. It seems likely that this will remain unsettled, for that matter. So, the debate continues...
Personally, I got more and more intrigued with this case as the 50th anniversary rolled around. But that was more from a historical perspective, and what kind of a President JFK had been. I watched some conspiracy videos (I have long believed that there was more to this event than meets the eye), and so it always seemed likely that someone else was involved. But I found myself being drawn to these videos, and to the stories surrounding the assassination. It gets more and more fascinating, the more you expose yourself to all of the issues and questions, and seeming contradictions, surrounding this one event.
To that end, there was one guy that I actually took up on a sort of makeshift debate with. Usually, I do not engage too seriously in the comments section of places like Youtube. You just get such a wide range of viewpoints, including crass and crazy commentaries. But this guy seemed absolutely so sure that Oswald was the lone gunman involved, that he appeared dismissive of all other viewpoints. So, despite my own mind not being completely made up (although I still lean towards more than one shooter being involved), I tried to take him to task a bit, and posed numerous questions, as much to see what his responses would be as anything else.
Part One
Question - Me; I am not sure what the answer is regarding the assassination. It is hard to take the conspiracy theories seriously, but there are a lot of strange things about the official account, as well. That said, I tread carefully with people who are "sure" that they know the truth, and heap contempt on other, opposing viewpoints. Who witnessed Oswald firing the shot? Does that explain Kennedy being thrown violently back and to the left with the final shot? And why are there so many coincidences? Why was Oswald's interrogation not recorded, which was standard practice? Why did he not take the shots when the motorcade was approaching the building, or right underneath it, for that matter? Bobby Kennedy officially accepted the Warren Report, but privately claimed that it was a shoddy piece of investigation. Why would he suggest such a thing? Why did the autopsy report go missing? Why were people that were there go running towards the grass knoll? And if there is nothing the government needs to cover up, why such secrecy for so many decades now, not just years, in terms of releasing documents? Those are just a few lingering questions and concerns, and there are plenty more, as surely you are aware. There are just so many questions still lingering, and I'm just curious as to what your answers are to those.
Answer (David Emerling): - There really isn't anything particularly unusual in this case as far as evidence and testimony is concerned.
You asked the following questions:
QUESTION: Who witnessed Oswald firing the shots?
ANSWER: Howard Brennan. In fact, his description to the police, very quickly after the shooting, was quite accurate. It probably led to Officer Tippit detaining Oswald. Others saw a person at the 6th floor window, as well, not just Brennan. But Brennan got the best look.
QUESTION: Does that explain Kennedy being thrown violently back and to the left with the final shot?
ANSWER: Kennedy actually moves forward at the precise moment the bullet impacts his head. This is very difficult to see in real time. If you get a good copy of the Zapruder film, preferably one that indicates the frame numbers, and you toggle back-and-forth between frames Z-312 (just prior to impact) and Z-313 (just after impact), you can clearly see his head being jolted forward. His head goes forward almost 3-inches in less than 1/18th of a second. That is not a natural movement and can only be from the bullet's impact. True, afterwards, his whole body goes backwards. But that is probably nothing more than a neuromuscular reaction (back muscles tightening) from the brain trauma.
QUESTION: And why are there so many coincidences?
ANSWER: What coincidences? You didn't give any examples.
QUESTION: Why was Oswald's interrogation not recorded, which was standard practice?
ANSWER: Actually, it was not a "standard practice" to record interrogations. Captain Fritz never recorded his interrogations. Oswald's interrogation was no different. Yeah, in light of the controversy made over this case, it would have been nice to have a recording. But, it certainly did not represent a departure from their usual procedure that it was not recorded. In fact, the DPD did not have a tape recorder.
QUESTION: Why did he not take the shots when the motorcade was approaching the building, or right underneath it, for that matter?
ANSWER: The best answer to that question is that Oswald probably did not want to be seen. The best was to do that would be wait until the motorcade was moving away and most of the Secret Service and police had their backs to him. The Secret Service was scanning the buildings as the motorcade approached. Had Oswald been at that window with his rifle while they were all facing him, he would have been lucky to get a single shot off, not to mention three. The fact that not a single agent or police officer saw Oswald at the window is a testament to the wisdom of his choice of waiting. Also, he did take a shot when the limousine was practically just beneath the Depository. But tree branches obscured that area of Elm Street. This was the shot that was a complete miss.
QUESTION: Bobby Kennedy officially accepted the Warren Report, but privately claimed that it was a shoddy piece of investigation. Why would he suggest such a thing?
ANSWER: I do not know if what you say is true. In any case, what difference does it make what Bobby Kennedy thought? Just because he was the president's brother gives him no special insight into the investigation. He was not involved with the investigation. Jackie Kennedy thought that her husband was killed by a "silly little communist". Should we believe her?
QUESTION: Why did the autopsy report go missing?
ANSWER: The autopsy report is not missing. It's in evidence! I imagine you are actually referring to the fact that Dr. Humes claimed that he burned his notes. Is that what you really meant? By the way, Dr. Humes was never asked to turn in his notes. He volunteered the information about burning his notes without having been asked. Does that sound like somebody trying to hide something to you? He gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for having burned the notes, by the way.
QUESTION: Why were people that were there go running towards the grass knoll?
ANSWER: What do you think? Do you think they were all running in that direction in the hope that they would run into a gun wielding, crazed shooter, who just blew off the President of the United States' head? The only way to continue to see the motorcade after it left Dealey Plaza was to look over the embankment near the overpass. I imagine many of those people were wanting to see where the motorcade went. They may have been following a police officer who ran up the hill. They may have been trying to get away of the perceived killing zone, Elm Street. There are a host of reasonable explanations. But I sincerely doubt people were hoping to catch the assassin. What were the women going to do - hit him over the head with their purse?
QUESTION: And if there is nothing the government needs to cover up, why such secrecy for so many decades now, not just years, in terms of releasing documents?
ANSWER: Nearly everything involved with the assassination is now publicly available. The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) made available most of everything else that was remaining. And yet, despite that, no smoking gun. The conclusion remains the same today as it was back in 1964. Oswald was the assassin. No evidence of a conspiracy.
Listen to this:
http://emerling22.com/kennedy/sealed-records.mp3
Part Two
You argue well, and make a very compelling case. My compliments.
But there are so many questions regarding this event, and all the strange things that surround it, that more answers are needed.
Since everyone (including you) agrees that the first bullet missed altogether, and the third bullet obviously is accounted for, since it is the one that got Kennedy in the head, then how could that other "magic bullet", as the call it, have been responsible for so many wounds between two different men?
I would have to review the Zapruder tape further, but I have seen it numerous times (as have many, many other people). And the general consensus appears to be that he flies backward immediately after the shot clearly hit it's target, and takes a part of JFK's head off, literally. His head and body rocks violently backward and to the left, before slumping. And, again, Jackie Kennedy gets out of her seat and picks up a large piece of his brain that has flown backwards!
There is also the case of the three hobos, who looked nothing like hobos at all, who were very quickly released without apparently serious interrogation. Does it not strike you as an amazing coincidence that one of the names given was John F. Gedney?
Also, why was a man named Lee Harvey Oswald (but bearing no physical resemblance at all to the one that we know) in the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City a little less than two months before the assassination?
You mentioned a witness (Howard Brennan) who apparently clearly saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. But he believed that the shooting was a conspiracy, and was afraid to testify for fear of the safety of himself and his family! Initially, he thought Oswald most closely resembled the gunman he saw. But months later, he positively identified him to the FBI, seeming no doubt. But what about the witnesses (who actually knew Oswald, because they were actual coworkers) who saw Oswald calmly eating his lunch on the second floor by Carolyn Arnold minutes before the shooting, and witnesses (manager Roy Truly and police officer Marrion Baker) who also saw him down on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting, Coke in hand, and not looking out of breath or nervous or anything? In fact, he actually seemed unaware at that time that the President had been shot!
Also, if it stands to reason that Oswald would deny having shot Kennedy if he was guilty of it, would it not also stand to reason that the government, if indeed it was involved, would have even more reason to deny it, and could and would (and possibly did) go to extraordinary lengths to hide it? Could and would make up an extraordinarily compelling case "backed up by facts", for one lone, lunatic gunman being responsible, since this is safer?
You mention, almost in passing, that almost every document concerning the assassination was released. But not all of them have been, nor will they be for decades yet, and many of those documents that were released were whited out. Not just names or anything, either, but almost the entire document, in some cases! Again, if the government wanted to minimize the obviously strong skepticism among the public when it comes to the assassination, which it would stand to reason they would desire if innocent, then why not simply release all of the documents, instead of going to such extraordinary lengths to make release dates for such documents many decades into the future -well beyond the time when pretty much anyone around during that time, let alone possibly involved - would be long gone?
You are right, obviously, that the official Warren Report findings obviously pointed to the lone gunman as being responsible. But how do you account for a Congressional investigation in the late seventies suggesting that it was, indeed, likely a conspiracy?
Again, whether you credit it or not, there are plenty of unanswered questions surrounding this case, enough to get intelligent, and yes, rational people, to question the official account of these events. You might not agree with it, but the questions will persist, likely long after you and I are long gone.
*BTW - My computer did not allow me to access the link that you sent. I will try again, on a different computer. And you stoked my curiosity with the Zapruder film showing Kennedy's head going forward. So, I will try to watch that, as well. Just wanted to say, also, that I enjoyed reading your answers to my questions, and you raise some very interesting points! I like to hear both sides of an argument, and this is one argument that obviously has not cooled down much in half a century!
(So far, as of the time that I am writing this, he never answered these latter questions and concerns, although I would definitely be interested in what he would have to say about it. He is sticking with the official account of events, and argued quite well on behalf of it. But it just seems like there are so many questions and mysteries surrounding this one event, that it defies logic to simply accept that official account of events as Kosher.
Still, it cannot be completely removed, because it is now part of the history, and however suspicious it might seem, it remains just on the periphery of plausibility. I don't know for absolutely certain that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, or that he did not simply act alone, as the official report suggests. Perhaps the release of future documents will shed more light on the event, although they may not, too. Again, though, the question: why has it taken this long for them to release all of the document, when it is now over half a century since the assassination?)
But there are so many questions regarding this event, and all the strange things that surround it, that more answers are needed.
Since everyone (including you) agrees that the first bullet missed altogether, and the third bullet obviously is accounted for, since it is the one that got Kennedy in the head, then how could that other "magic bullet", as the call it, have been responsible for so many wounds between two different men?
I would have to review the Zapruder tape further, but I have seen it numerous times (as have many, many other people). And the general consensus appears to be that he flies backward immediately after the shot clearly hit it's target, and takes a part of JFK's head off, literally. His head and body rocks violently backward and to the left, before slumping. And, again, Jackie Kennedy gets out of her seat and picks up a large piece of his brain that has flown backwards!
There is also the case of the three hobos, who looked nothing like hobos at all, who were very quickly released without apparently serious interrogation. Does it not strike you as an amazing coincidence that one of the names given was John F. Gedney?
Also, why was a man named Lee Harvey Oswald (but bearing no physical resemblance at all to the one that we know) in the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City a little less than two months before the assassination?
You mentioned a witness (Howard Brennan) who apparently clearly saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. But he believed that the shooting was a conspiracy, and was afraid to testify for fear of the safety of himself and his family! Initially, he thought Oswald most closely resembled the gunman he saw. But months later, he positively identified him to the FBI, seeming no doubt. But what about the witnesses (who actually knew Oswald, because they were actual coworkers) who saw Oswald calmly eating his lunch on the second floor by Carolyn Arnold minutes before the shooting, and witnesses (manager Roy Truly and police officer Marrion Baker) who also saw him down on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting, Coke in hand, and not looking out of breath or nervous or anything? In fact, he actually seemed unaware at that time that the President had been shot!
Also, if it stands to reason that Oswald would deny having shot Kennedy if he was guilty of it, would it not also stand to reason that the government, if indeed it was involved, would have even more reason to deny it, and could and would (and possibly did) go to extraordinary lengths to hide it? Could and would make up an extraordinarily compelling case "backed up by facts", for one lone, lunatic gunman being responsible, since this is safer?
You mention, almost in passing, that almost every document concerning the assassination was released. But not all of them have been, nor will they be for decades yet, and many of those documents that were released were whited out. Not just names or anything, either, but almost the entire document, in some cases! Again, if the government wanted to minimize the obviously strong skepticism among the public when it comes to the assassination, which it would stand to reason they would desire if innocent, then why not simply release all of the documents, instead of going to such extraordinary lengths to make release dates for such documents many decades into the future -well beyond the time when pretty much anyone around during that time, let alone possibly involved - would be long gone?
You are right, obviously, that the official Warren Report findings obviously pointed to the lone gunman as being responsible. But how do you account for a Congressional investigation in the late seventies suggesting that it was, indeed, likely a conspiracy?
Again, whether you credit it or not, there are plenty of unanswered questions surrounding this case, enough to get intelligent, and yes, rational people, to question the official account of these events. You might not agree with it, but the questions will persist, likely long after you and I are long gone.
*BTW - My computer did not allow me to access the link that you sent. I will try again, on a different computer. And you stoked my curiosity with the Zapruder film showing Kennedy's head going forward. So, I will try to watch that, as well. Just wanted to say, also, that I enjoyed reading your answers to my questions, and you raise some very interesting points! I like to hear both sides of an argument, and this is one argument that obviously has not cooled down much in half a century!
(So far, as of the time that I am writing this, he never answered these latter questions and concerns, although I would definitely be interested in what he would have to say about it. He is sticking with the official account of events, and argued quite well on behalf of it. But it just seems like there are so many questions and mysteries surrounding this one event, that it defies logic to simply accept that official account of events as Kosher.
Still, it cannot be completely removed, because it is now part of the history, and however suspicious it might seem, it remains just on the periphery of plausibility. I don't know for absolutely certain that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy, or that he did not simply act alone, as the official report suggests. Perhaps the release of future documents will shed more light on the event, although they may not, too. Again, though, the question: why has it taken this long for them to release all of the document, when it is now over half a century since the assassination?)
No comments:
Post a Comment