Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    I'm not going to get personal, but I imagine others reading this will wonder, as I do, what kind of investigator would deprecate the eyewitness testimony of a secret service agent who saw Kennedy's head as close up as anyone ever could have seen it and testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in the back of the skull?

    It shocks me to see someone treating evidence in that way.
    If anyone its going to be shocked, it should be for your misrepresentation of what Clint Hill said. Hill described an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and the side of JFK's head being blown out.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

      Calloway was an unproblematic witness. He said Oswald wore a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket​, not a brown one. Marina Oswald identified the jacket as belonging to her husband.

      I think I confused the description of the jacket given by Virginia Davis with that given by Ted Callaway.

      I quote from my # 1005:

      (4) Virginia Davis said that the murderer 'didn't look like he was over 20' and 'had on a light-brown-tan jacket'. Oswald was 24, but because of his receding hair looked older and certainly looked 'over 20'. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a light-brown jacket.

      (6) Ted Callaway testified that the killer was wearing a light-brown tan jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a brown jacket. Calloway made a prejudiced statement about the way Oswald was dressed when he identified him: 'He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.' A more reasonable explanation is that he was someone else or even that he had taken it off at the police station.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        If anyone its going to be shocked, it should be for your misrepresentation of what Clint Hill said. Hill described an entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and the side of JFK's head being blown out.

        That's completely untrue.

        I accurately reported what Clint Hill testified.

        As I reported, he testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in th​e back of the skull.

        Are you seriously suggesting that I made that up?

        Do you want me to quote his testimony again to prove that I told the truth?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


          I think I confused the description of the jacket given by Virginia Davis with that given by Ted Callaway.

          I quote from my # 1005:

          (4) Virginia Davis said that the murderer 'didn't look like he was over 20' and 'had on a light-brown-tan jacket'. Oswald was 24, but because of his receding hair looked older and certainly looked 'over 20'. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a light-brown jacket.

          (6) Ted Callaway testified that the killer was wearing a light-brown tan jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a brown jacket. Calloway made a prejudiced statement about the way Oswald was dressed when he identified him: 'He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.' A more reasonable explanation is that he was someone else or even that he had taken it off at the police station.
          Calloway saw Oswald near the corner of 10th & Patton seconds after he heard the shots. Oswald hadn’t discarded his jacket at that time. He did that later.

          He ditched it at Ballew’s Texaco Service Station at Crawford and Jefferson. After Calloway had seen him.

          Prediction - now that I’ve proved you wrong you won’t respond or acknowledge this.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-19-2023, 10:46 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            I can’t believe that you’re STILL trying your childish attempt to get me censured in some way by Jon.
            Certainly not , I'm just curious if you include him as a conspiracy nut like the names you mentioned .

            Regardless of who he is .

            It was a genuine question .

            You just seem to single out a George ,cobalt PI and myself ,
            Be consistent , mention others who have the same opinion , .

            So is he a one of us ? You know the bad guys .
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Certainly not , I'm just curious if you include him as a conspiracy nut like the names you mentioned .

              Regardless of who he is .

              It was a genuine question .

              You just seem to single out a George ,cobalt PI and myself ,
              Be consistent , mention others who have the same opinion , .

              So is he a one of us ? You know the bad guys .
              So when I mention conspiracy theorists I should write out a list of every one that I consider a looney?

              Single out. Ok.

              Why do you and George single me out for criticism for things that I’ve said and yet you give yourselves a completely free pass?
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-19-2023, 10:48 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                I am also unable to accept that when a frangible projectile releases its energy on a target, that, following the explosion, the target and debris field will move in any direction but in the line of flight of the projectile. This would contradict the laws of physics and my 55 years of ballistics and hunting experience.
                The Zapruder film shows the debris field moving forward.

                And the laws of physics show that gunshot victims do not go hurling around like in Hollywood movies.

                Mythbusters busted that myth years ago.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  The Zapruder film shows the debris field moving forward.

                  And the laws of physics show that gunshot victims do not go hurling around like in Hollywood movies.

                  Mythbusters busted that myth years ago.
                  Police Motorcyclist Bobby Hargis was spattered with blood and brain matter while riding to Kennedy's left and rear.

                  Jacqueline Kennedy retrieved a piece of the President's skull from the back of the limousine.

                  That means a headshot came from the front.

                  If you want to argue that the brain matter, blood and piece of skull were thrown backwards, by a shot from behind, then you should be arguing that debris and blood seen moving forward were caused by an additional shot from the front.

                  Are you prepared to do that?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Calloway saw Oswald near the corner of 10th & Patton seconds after he heard the shots. Oswald hadn’t discarded his jacket at that time. He did that later.

                    He ditched it at Ballew’s Texaco Service Station at Crawford and Jefferson. After Calloway had seen him.

                    Prediction - now that I’ve proved you wrong you won’t respond or acknowledge this.
                    Yup….right again….nothing.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      So when I mention conspiracy theorists I should write out a list of every one that I consider a looney?

                      Single out. Ok.

                      Why do you and George single me out for criticism for things that I’ve said and yet you give yourselves a completely free pass?
                      And no response to this one either.

                      Who needs a crystal ball?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                        Hi George,

                        Please rephrase what you wrote above, because I see it like this:
                        The blue line shows 90 degrees downward, the green line 0 degrees, the yellow appr. 45 degrees and the orange line appr. 60 degrees. This doesn’t fit with your 30 to 45 degrees from the horizontal plane.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	111
Size:	25.4 KB
ID:	806511​​​
                        By the way, this photo (Croft) was taken at about Zapruder frame 160, when Connally was briefly looking to his left.



                        First of all, the question of whether or not the “45 to 60 degrees downward trajectory” fits with how Myers proposed it doesn’t matter. Secondly, the photo above is not the best to use for a few reasons: 1) without any points of reference we/I have no way of knowing where (at what point along the route) it was taken, 2) it’s not all that sharp and without a clear view of the president and 3) judging by the chrome rim of the car window, it actually seems to have been rotated somewhat clockwise.

                        Cheers,
                        Frank
                        Hi Frank,

                        I suspect that most people are interpreting that angle in the manner that you describe, but I don't share that opinion. During the autopsy the body would have being lying horizontally on the table and Humes would have been referring to what was on front of him rather than to what may have happened in Dealy Plaza. So imagine your lines and Kennedy rotated 90 degrees to the left. Autopsies require measurements to be from a physical object, so Humes would have been estimating from the surface of the back (blue line) rather than an imaginary line drawn at right angles to the back. So from the blue line towards the green line. The yellow line would be the same but the orange line would be on the other side of the yellow line, 60 degrees from the blue line. Downward is a reference to the back, upward would be on the other side of the green line.

                        The figure in the background with the camera seems to be standing vertically.

                        Just to revisit you earlier statement that you prefer to base your opinions on the autopsy report used by the Warren Commission.

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Autopsy-4.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	43.7 KB
ID:	806599
                        As you would be aware, Humes later claimed that the location of this bullet wound was incorrect by 4 inches. Have you noted that the calibre is not consistent with a 6.5 mm projectile, but with a .22 calibre projectile. Wound size can contract in flesh, but not in bone, so this wound could not have been inflicted by a Carcano 6.5 projectile.

                        Cheers, George
                        Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          So when I mention conspiracy theorists I should write out a list of every one that I consider a looney?

                          Single out. Ok.

                          Why do you and George single me out for criticism for things that I’ve said and yet you give yourselves a completely free pass?
                          Yes! those that have contributed to this particular thread , why not ?

                          If you singled out George cobalt, p.i and myself , there weren't many others who contributed that you labeled CT ,but you chose not to name the Obvious . For obvious reasons no doubt.

                          What free pass ? You got as good as gave on this topic ,don't cry foul now .
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            And no response to this one either.

                            Who needs a crystal ball?
                            No response !!! Derrrrrrr.
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              Certainly not , I'm just curious if you include him as a conspiracy nut like the names you mentioned .

                              Regardless of who he is .

                              It was a genuine question .

                              You just seem to single out a George ,cobalt PI and myself ,
                              Be consistent , mention others who have the same opinion , .

                              So is he a one of us ? You know the bad guys .
                              Greetings fellow Looney,

                              I trust you were suitably chastened by Mr Integrity's treatise on the "proper use of evidence" (#1655). You will recall how he provided an example when he proved beyond doubt that there was a railway track behind the picket fence solely with this brilliant piece of evidence: "Whats that behind the fence in a 1967 photograph? Could it be a rail track? I think it is.". Then he had the photograph showing "large, movable item have been that was located in an area where we know that there was a train track".

                              Ah, there it is in the background....who could doubt.
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	Train-2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	48.7 KB ID:	806603

                              Are these people queueing for tea and scones in the Pullman Dining car we can see there in the background ???
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	Train-1.jpg Views:	0 Size:	100.4 KB ID:	806604

                              Someone appears to have purloined those railway tracks.
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	Train-5.jpg Views:	0 Size:	77.2 KB ID:	806605

                              Or is that it, starting where the cars are parked over it and ending at the road (X marks the picket fence)?
                              Click image for larger version  Name:	Train-4.jpg Views:	0 Size:	84.0 KB ID:	806606

                              I wonder where Sir HS's prodigious and eloquent "proof" on the phantom rail track rates on the 'lack of intellectual humility' scale? I suspect that most of his quoted "evidence" is of the same standard.

                              Cheers, George

                              P.S. Despite multiple claims to the contrary, I seem to remember commenting on this train track nonsense before.....Oh, yeah, Post #1603.
                              Last edited by GBinOz; 03-20-2023, 02:08 AM.
                              Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Greetings fellow Looney,

                                I trust you were suitably chastened by Mr Integrity's treatise on the "proper use of evidence" (#1655). You will recall how he provided an example when he proved beyond doubt that there was a railway track behind the picket fence solely with this brilliant piece of evidence: "Whats that behind the fence in a 1967 photograph? Could it be a rail track? I think it is.". Then he had the photograph showing "large, movable item have been that was located in an area where we know that there was a train track".

                                Ah, there it is in the background....who could doubt.
                                Click image for larger version Name:	Train-2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	48.7 KB ID:	806603

                                Are these people queueing for tea and scones in the Pullman Dining car we can see there in the background ???
                                Click image for larger version Name:	Train-1.jpg Views:	0 Size:	100.4 KB ID:	806604

                                Someone appears to have purloined those railway tracks.
                                Click image for larger version Name:	Train-5.jpg Views:	0 Size:	77.2 KB ID:	806605

                                Or is that it, starting where the cars are parked over it and ending at the road (X marks the picket fence)?
                                Click image for larger version Name:	Train-4.jpg Views:	0 Size:	84.0 KB ID:	806606

                                I wonder where Sir HS's prodigious and eloquent "proof" on the phantom rail track rates on the 'lack of intellectual humility' scale? I suspect that most of his quoted "evidence" is of the same standard.

                                Cheers, George
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X