JFK - 50 Years Later

Not open for further replies.
I think in many events, those who control information selectively choose which testimony they want. There was no shortage of this "unreliable" testimony reinforcing the "gunman on 6th floor of Book building. You can't have it both ways. If SOME testimony is chosen and other testimony is rejected, you cannot use the "eyewitness testimony countless times to be unreliable" line. But, let's assume that this is true. Then, in these famous cases, do not withhold video evidence from the public. The Zapruder Filn was withheld for a decade. The only thing the public "knew" about it was what Dan Rather said, and what he said was false. If you want people to believe you, speaking of the government for example, the best way to do that is NOT to seize all the footage, in the case of the Pentagon on 911, and make people sue you in court to then reveal like 5 frames of inconclusive smeariness. This is NOT the way to gain credibility. I pin nearly 100% of the conspiracy movement on government itself. It could very easily dispel these theories by not gagging witnesses, killing witnesses, in the case of the Boston man killed in FBI custody, for instance, and for NOT releasing camera footage. Do I want to see Lanza mowing down kids? No. Do i want to see his car drive up to the school and blow the door open, Yes, yes I do.
The eyewitness testimony doesn't disprove Oswald did it. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

I was watching and listening to the replay of the broadcast today. One local channel played 2 hours straight of it. I noticed errors (downtown movie theater instead of Oak Cliff), reports of a another suspect (man picked up in Ft Worth) and all the confusion that follows a tragedy. It was very interesting in hind sight.
"Conspiracy theory" is just code for the death of eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitnesses frequently disagree with each other, and/or interpret what they see in different ways. See 2 people with a gun? There were 2 shooters or one was an undercover cop?
The eyewitness testimony doesn't disprove Oswald did it. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

I was watching and listening to the replay of the broadcast today. One local channel played 2 hours straight of it. I noticed errors (downtown movie theater instead of Oak Cliff), reports of a another suspect (man picked up in Ft Worth) and all the confusion that follows a tragedy. It was very interesting in hind sight.

There are millions of people on the net today who grew up watching cop shows where there is never any conflicting testimony and the crime is solved in an hour. They can't imagine a time when there was not instant worldwide communication. Even today when there is, the witness on the other end of the line is not always reliable. They may be mistaken or just plain lying.
Oh excellent, narration provided by Dan "Head moved violently forward" Rather --I love how ALL the focus is always on wether or not LHO could have made the shots. Yeah, he could have--so could somebody else!! It was never proven that he was the shooter, nor did he ever have a chance to defend himself. Also, debunkers spend about 0% of their time focusing on others who SAW separate shooters, not spend any time on the clear bungling of the evidence handling by doctors

The Zapruder film was probrably shown once to Dan Rather and the others in the room. Did Rather lie, or did he "see" the movement as he expected to see it, knowing the shot had been allegedly fired from behind? When Zapruder described the head wound, he didn't even mention the movement of the body and Brehm said the second shot knocked him all the way down, which would on the surface of it, imply forward. Mrs. Newman described JFK as having his hand on the side of his head in relation to the head wound, in a film clip i saw this week. The Zapruder film did not show that sort of reaction.

Yesterday i was reading a post in which someone used the term lone nutter, except he spelled butter. The next comment noted his misspelling. When i read the original comment i had not noticed he had spelled butter instead of nutter, as i was quickly scanning his comment.

No one saw separate shooters. A few said they saw a puff of smoke by the picket fence.
wrong, there is the deaf/mute witness who saw the man with a gun hand a gun to another man who took apart the gun and placed it into a tool box and walked off on the railroad track. And yes, Dan Rather, it's pretty fucking simple to see which way the body flies...he could have mentioned nothing about it but said clearly, "Flew violently to the front" It's retarded---Black isn't white and up isn't down--simple 5 year old concepts. So more comments about testimony being unreliable but nobody wants to speak to the uber reliability of witnesses who confirm 6th floor gun barrels and the like?
wow---that is a brilliant rebuttal Cairenn, classic. Stay on point! The fact that the FBI did not care at all to interview this man is ridiculous.
Do you have some evidence other than a You Tube? Can you summarize the YT,please. I cannot watch them on my computer.
I don' t have time to provide close captioning to those who are on computers from 1986 but I wrote above what this man saw. If one person can give me a rational explanation for the FBI not interviewing this man.. go! Be specific, don't beat around it.
You'll need to get a working computer so that you can listen to actual witnesses, doctors, people at the morgue ect. Tell you what they witnessed
The Zapruder Film was withheld for a decade. The only thing the public "knew" about it was what Dan Rather said, and what he said was false. .

Withheld for a decade? Nope, don't tell that to someone that was alive and living in Dallas at that time. Dan Rather was not the ONLY reporter either. I just watched 2 hours of Channel 8s coverage yesterday.

The November 29, 1963 issue of Life—which featured the "LIFE" logo in a black box instead of the usual red box—published about 30 frames of the Zapruder film in black and white. Frames were also published in color in the December 6, 1963 special "John F. Kennedy Memorial Edition", and in issues dated October 2, 1964 (a special article on the film and the Warren Commission report), November 25, 1966, and November 24, 1967.

In October 1964, the U.S. Government Printing Office released 26 volumes of testimony and evidence compiled by the Warren Commission. Volume 18 of the commission's hearings reproduced 158 frames of the Zapruder film in black and white. However, frames 208–211 were missing, a splice was visible in frames 207 and 212, frames 314 and 315 were switched, and frame 284 was a repeat of 283.[11] In reply to an inquiry, the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover wrote in 1965 that 314 and 315 were switched due to a printing error, and that the error did not exist in the original Warren Commission exhibits. In early 1967, Life released a statement that four frames of the camera original (208–211) had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released the missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from Zapruder with the original.[12] (Of the Zapruder frames outside the section used in the commission's exhibits, frames 155–157 and 341 were also damaged and spliced out of the camera original, but are present in the first-generation copies.)

Prior to the 1969 trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for conspiracy in connection with the assassination, a copy of the film several generations from the original was subpoenaed from Time Inc. in 1967 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for use at Shaw's grand jury hearing. Garrison unsuccessfully subpoenaed the original film in 1968. The courtroom showings of Garrison's copy in 1969 were the first time it had been shown in public as a film. Noted conspiracy theorist Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgment, was in New Orleans at the time to assist Garrison in his investigation. Lane borrowed Garrison's copy of the Zapruder film and had several copies printed at a local lab. These low quality copies began circulating among assassination researchers and were known to many journalists as well. The underground circulation of these copies and the secret screenings to a select few who had the opportunity to see them added an additional aura of mystery to the film, enhancing the idea that there was a secret to be found in it that was being kept hidden from the general public.

The first broadcast of the Zapruder film was on the late-night television show "Underground News" with Chuck Collins, originating on WSNS-TV, Ch 44, Chicago in 1970. It was given to director Howie Samuelsohn by Penn Jones and later aired in syndication to Philadelphia, Detroit, Kansas City and St. Louis.[ex/]

November 23, 1963
8:00 a.m.
Stolley arrived at Zapruder's office an hour early and waited.

9:00 a.m.
Zapruder screened the film for Secret Service agents, then met with Stolley and agreed to sell only print rights of the film to Life. He expressed concern that the film not be exploited. Stolley left with the original film, which was couriered to Life's editorial office and printing center in Chicago (Zapruder kept the remaining print). Life personnel examined the film to decide which frames to publish. At some point, they accidentally damaged the original film in two places, and six frames were removed, leaving visible splice marks.

February 13, 1969
In New Orelans, Zapruder testified for the prosecution in the Jim Garrison investigation into a possible Kennedy conspiracy involving Clay Shaw. During the film's first public showing, Zapruder confirmed its authenticity. Garrison showed the film to the jury 10 times.

February 14, 1969
In an evening news program, Los Angeles station KTLA aired a copy of the Zapruder film, narrated by anchor Hal Fishman. The broadcast included reports of the day's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans.

December 26, 1969
Life magazine published another frame from the film in a special double issue about the 1960s.

Content from External Source
Content from External Source
I don't need to listen to some cherry picked story that was but together years after the incident.

I lived through it.

I am taking your refusal to supply evidence as your LACK of evidence. I will await some evidence to continue this.
(1) Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the testimony of Ed Hoffman (28th June, 1967)

On June 26, 1967, Mr. Jim Dowdy, 725 McLenore, Texas, advised a deaf mute, Virgil E. Hoffman, who is employed at Texas Instruments, had indicated he wanted to furnish information to Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It was pointed out to Mr. Dowdy that Hoffman should put in writing in detail everything he saw the day of the assassination.

On June 28, 1967, Virgil E. Hoffman appeared at the Dallas Office of the FBI and advised he resided at 424 Grand Prairie Road, Grand Prairie, Texas, and was employed at Texas Instruments, Dallas. He said he parked his automobile near the railroad tracks on Stemmons Freeway and Elm Street, about 12:00 noon on November 22, 1963.

Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men...

Hoffman said the only description he could furnish of the men was that one of them wore a white shirt. He stated he had discussed this matter with his father at the time of the assassination, and his father suggested that he not talk to anyone about this, but after thinking about what he saw, Hoffman stated he decided to tell the FBI.

(2) Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the testimony of Ed Hoffman (6th July, 1967)
On July 5, 1967, Mr. E. Hoffman, father of Virgil E. Hoffman, and Fred Hoffman, brother of Virgil Hoffman, were interviewed at 428 West Main Street, Grand Prairie, Texas. Both advised that Virgil Hoffman has been a deaf mute his entire life and has in the past distorted facts of events observed by him. Both the father and brother stated that Virgil Hoffman loved President Kennedy and had mentioned to them just after the assassination that he (Virgil Hoffman) was standing on the freeway near the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. Virgil Hoffman told them he saw numerous men running after the President was shot. The father of Virgil Hoffman stated that he did not believe that his son had seen anything of value and doubted he had observed any men running from the Texas School Book Depository and for this reason had not mentioned it to the FBI.

(3) Edward Kennedy, letter to Ed Hoffman (19th November, 1975)
My family has been aware of various theories concerning the death of President Kennedy, just as it has been aware of many speculative accounts which have arisen from the death of Robert Kennedy. I am sure that it is understood that the continual speculation is painful for members of my family. We have always accepted the findings of the Warren Commission report and have no reason to question the quality and the effort of those who investigated the fatal shooting of Robert Kennedy.

(4) Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the testimony of Ed Hoffman (25th March, 1977)
On March 25, 1977, Richard H. Freeman, Texas Instruments, Semi-Conductor Building, Richardson, Texas, telephone number 238-4965, home address 2573 Sheli, Frisco, Texas, telephone 377-9456, telephonically advised Special Agent (name deleted) that he knew sign language and has communicated with Virgil E. Hoffman, a deaf mute who is employed at his building at Texas Instruments. Mr. Hoffman communicated with him by the use of sign language and Hoffman was concerned that the FBI perhaps did not fully understand what he was trying to communicate. Hoffman communicated the following information to Mr. Freeman:

Hoffman was watching the motorcade of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas. Hoffman was standing on Stemmons Freeway watching the presidential motorcade, looking in an easterly direction when the motorcade sped away and headed north on Stemmons Freeway. Hoffman communicated that this must have been right after President Kennedy was shot. Hoffman saw two men, one with a rifle and one with a handgun, behind a wooden fence, approximately six feet in height, at this moment. This fence is located on the same side of Elm Street as the Texas School Book Depository building but closer to Stemmons Freeway. Since he is deaf, he naturally could not hear any shots but thought he saw a puff of smoke in the vicinity of where the two men were standing. As soon as he saw the motorcade speed away and saw the puff of smoke in the vicinity of the two men, the man with the rifle looked like he was breaking the rifle down by removing the barrel from the stock and placing it in some dark type of suitcase that the other man was holding. The two men then ran north on the railroad tracks by actually running on the tracks. Hoffman was standing approximately 75 yards from this fence. This fence was at approximately the same height or level as the ground floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

On March 28, 1977, Virgil E. Hoffman accompanied Special Agent (name deleted) to Stemmons Freeway, also known as Interstate Highway 35 North, Dallas, Texas.

Hoffman communicated that he was driving a 1962 Ford Falcon on November 22, 1963. He parked his car on the west shoulder of Stemmons Freeway at the northbound lane near the Texas and Pacific Railroad overpass that crosses Stemmons Freeway. He could not see the presidential motorcade as it was proceeding west on Elm Street toward the Triple Underpass. He saw the motorcade speed up as it emerged on Stemmons Freeway heading north. His line of vision was due east looking from Stemmons Freeway toward the Texas School Book Depository building. The two men he saw were behind the wooden fence above the grassy knoll north of Elm Street and just before the Triple Underpass. He indicated he saw smoke in that vicinity and saw the man with the rifle disassembling the rifle near some type of railroad track control box located close to the railroad tracks. Both men ran north on the railroad tracks.

He tried to get the attention of a Dallas policeman who was standing on the railroad overpass that crosses Stemmons Freeway, but since he could not yell, he could not communicate with the policeman. He drove his car north on Stemmons Freeway after the motorcade passed him in an effort to find the two men, but he lost sight of them.

(5) John McAdams, Ed Hoffman: Did He See a Grassy Knoll Shooter? (2003)
If Ed Hoffman's account is accurate, there was a Grassy Knoll shooter and a conspiracy. A deaf mute, Hoffman now claims to have stopped above the on-ramp of the Stemmons Freeway, hoping to get a view of the presidential limousine as it drove past. He thus had a view of the area behind the Stockade Fence at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He claims to have seen a man, dressed in a business suit, shoot from behind the fence, and then toss the rifle to a man in a man dressed as a railroad worker, who disassembled it, put it into a case, and walked off. An explosive story, if true.

If Hoffman didn't literally see a shooter, did he add that element to his story sometime after he talked to the FBI in 1967, or was it there all along? Mark Panlener, in a thorough review of this issue, concludes that Hoffman was telling of seeing a shooter and accomplice from the very beginning. Two witnesses, his wife Rosie, and his friend Lucien Pierce, confirm that he was telling of a shooter as far back as 1963. However, both are friends of Hoffman, and would not want to see him embarrassed. One need not believe they are lying to doubt their corroboration of Hoffman's story. It would suffice that they have heard several versions of the story, and are simply confused, remembering details given later as part of the first telling.

On the other side is Ed's father Frederick Hoffman who maintained until his death in 1976 his son's first version of the story did not mention the two men behind the fence or seeing a shot fired. Hoffman supporters claim that Frederick was simply lying - not from evil motives but out of a desire to avoid seeing his son in harm's way...

The fact that Hoffman changed his story in the 1990s, adding the Joe Marshall Smith encounter and Sam Holland and his coworkers, might suggest that he was capable of changing it between the time he talked to the FBI in 1967 and the time he talked to them again in 1977. But it's also possible that this badly shaken and highly emotional witness was talking about seeing a shooter when he first told his story on November 22, 1963.

(9) Larry Peters, JFK Assassination Forum (15th May, 2004)
A lot of people do not know that Ed Hoffman, aside from being a deaf mute, does not have a good grasp of the English Language. It is so easy for misunderstandings on both sides to occur when trying to communicate with Ed over what he witnessed on 11/22/63. In 2002, A couple of researchers met with Ed Hoffman and his family in Dealey Plaza and Ed walked them through step by step as to what happened behind the fence as seen from the overpass he had stood on. Ed's daughter helped with the translation between Ed and the researchers.

Back in 1963, Ed didn't wear glasses and had better than average vision. Of course this is not uncommon when a person is without one of his five senses. Ed being deaf, did not know anyone was shooting at the motorcade for he could not hear the shots. It's what Ed seen that is important. What Ed did see was a puff of smoke at the stockade fence where a gentleman wearing a dark suit and hat had immediately turned away from it. Ed immediately noticed this individual had a long gun in his possession. Ed said the man did not run, but rather briskly walked the weapon up near the steam pipe where he tossed it to another man who then took the gun and broke it down before leaving the area. The hatted man then turned and casually walked back east along the fence in the direction he had just come from. The tossing of the gun near the steam pipe seems to be supported by a RR worker who told Seymour Weitzman that he had witnessed something being tossed through the trees. When Weitzman asked where did this happened exactly, the RR worker said 'over by the steam pipe'.

James Files did not say anything about walking a gun to the steam pipe and tossing it to anyone. Also, Lee Bowers described this man in the dark suit as being rather stocky, which doesn't match the build of James Files at the time of the shooting. So not only does Files not match the description of the man seen with the long gun, but his alleged actions do not match that of the man who tossed the gun over the steam pipe. These two important points tend to dispute Files being where he said he was on 11/22/63.​
Content from External Source

First, "frames" of the film and the release of the full film are two entirely different things. I can show you 100 frames of the Hindenburg that "prove" it never exploded. and this,from your text "At some point, they accidentally damaged the original film in two places, and six frames were removed, leaving visible splice marks. hahaha--evidence tampering or just a big goofy mistake--seriously!!!
You say you "lived through it" like you were sitting front and center recording it all...I get it, you are older than me, but that is a tactic meant to play on others emotions. You have supplied some FBI notes on Hoffman. Nothing I read leads me to dismiss him outright, not at all. Do you think it at all possible that witnesses ever felt compelled to soften their stories out of intimidation? Could that be? From your supplied text, "But it's also possible that this badly shaken and highly emotional witness was talking about seeing a shooter when he first told his story on November 22, 1963."--I'm interested in these witnesses, wether their stories are 100% consistent with other witnesses or not. Think about it. Do you believe in history? Which History? How much of "recorded" history did you witness first hand? How much of what is considered historically accurate was recorded by eyewitnesses to this history? Sure, some history is dug up and radio carbon dated and "dusted for prints" so to speak. But, the vast majority of history is written by the victors, and it is riddled with bias.
Finally, you are awaiting what exactly? NEITHER of us have a hair of evidence of anything, You don't know who shot JFK--you just know who they Said shot him. I cannot prove anything. I am interested in other witnesses, you are not
Believe bunk if you wish. I have heard the stories over and over and over.

There is plenty of evidence that Oswald shot JFK and nothing but unfounded stories and rumors otherwise. I object to your vulgar wording also. Time to ad you to the ignore list. I do not tolerate such unneeded vulgar language.
Bunk? What of Malcom Mac Wallace fingerprints found in the school book depository? That is nothing right? ----sorry about the language...I didn't realize we were so very sensitive ---show me evidence that Oswald did it--I don't want to hear about bullets and trajectory nonsense--does not prove WHO did the shooting. I'll need pictures of Oswald pulling the trigger
wow---that is a brilliant rebuttal Cairenn, classic. Stay on point! The fact that the FBI did not care at all to interview this man is ridiculous.
My mother plays cards with a man that swears that while he was a student at Texas A&M he was eating breakfast at a diner in Houston two days before Kennedy was shot when what he calls a g-man came into the diner and let several people know that Kennedy was going to be shot in Dallas. He is upset that the Warren Commission never called him and that the FBI doesn't take him seriously. He kept this earthshaking news to himself for years. I guess he's another credible witness you can be upset about the investigators ignoring. Personally I think he's another marginal personality that craves attention.
uh...you'll notice that it wasn't until 1967, that Hoffman basically forced his testimony onto the FBI. That is a lot of space, that is a lot of time--that is some genius sleuthing
Hama, yes--you can call up the FBI on your phone and schedule and interview--my obvious point is, they showed no interest in him, amongst many others--only wanted their pre-planned made for TV witnesses heard
jokes---does anybody get sarcasm anymore? Out of curiosity ...whatcha all suppose Ruby meant when he said "nobody would ever find out the REAL story" Was he just being cryptic? Do you all seriously believe he killed Oswald for love of country? REally?
@Bill--weak, weak comparison, try better
No it's just evidence that there are a lot of people that make claims about the Kennedy assassination just to get attention from people that are desperate to believe anyone but Oswald killed Kennedy. The hypotheses surrounding his death are more baffling, complicated and contradictory than the guesses at the identity of Jack The Ripper and are bunk because they are supported by just as much proof.
why would anybody be "desperate" to believe a different story? Just for fun? Or is it that whole Cass Sunstein claim that "people cannot grasp simple explanations and thus, make up huge conspiracy theories to make sense of the world's troubling realities? I want to believe a lone nut job killed the president, i really do. Way scarier to think there was an organized plot. I don't think I do though, too many problems with mishandling the body afterwards. Too many people like E Howard Hunt and LBJ's mistress talking--too many people placing Oswald AND Ruby together. The fact that Oswald got a job, through a friend, WAY before the motorcade route was changed to magically pass by him allowing him to kill JFK--what a stroke of luck! I don't claim to know al the answers, but my mind is not made up like the vast majority of people around here--they KNOW nobody else was involved, despite all the weirdness
jokes---does anybody get sarcasm anymore? Out of curiosity ...whatcha all suppose Ruby meant when he said "nobody would ever find out the REAL story" Was he just being cryptic? Do you all seriously believe he killed Oswald for love of country? REally?

"Jokes/sarcasm" = annoying hyperbole. No thanks.
What was Mac Wallace doing there? Is the fingerprint a conspiracy theory???? I think metabunk peeps are the real conspiracy theorists. This fingerprint expert was just seeking fame and fortune--in fact, you can tell in the video that he shows no real emotion at all...No, no----the FBI said, it was NOT a match--they tell you the truth, the FBI does
Last edited:
ok, I'm getting that no sarcasm, humor, incredulous tones, are allowed here. I will be as robotic and to the point as possible. It's getting annoying on my end too--pretty much nobody addresses any serious questions, always skirt my real queries, copy text and paste info that leads nowhere or doesn't explain anything and tell far off stories of people who made ridiculous claims as comparisons to pretty famous eyewitnesses...boring
This thread has no clear direction any more. I suggest participants review the posting guideline, and start new threads as needed.
Not open for further replies.