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 FISHY1118 View Post

    Yes! those that have contributed to this particular thread , why not ?

    Out of the 1711 posts made on this thread Jon has made no more that 3 or 4 posts.

    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 .
    Cry foul? I’m not ‘crying foul’ Fishy….don’t twist things. It was you and George who complained about me. I merely pointed out that you have said just as much and just the same type of comments that I have.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    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

      P.S. Despite multiple claims to the contrary, I seem to remember commenting on this train track nonsense before.....Oh, yeah, Post #1603.
      Genius.

      The first photograph shows the front of the Knoll. Why didn’t you post a photograph of Ruth Paine’s house saying “I can’t see a rail track.”

      The second photograph looks like it’s to the left 0f where the track would have been.

      The third only shows the area a car’s length or so away from the fence. As I said in my original post the track was closest to the fence at around 2 cars length away - I’d actually re-assess that to say 3 cars length.

      The fourth isn’t of a great quality.

      ​​​​​​…….

      I have to ask George…..what’s wrong with you?

      All that I did and said was in response to your derogatory comments about the Towner/ Boone/ Desroe evidence which, for whatever biased reason, you appear unwilling to consider. I initially said that Desroe could have been on the rail track to the right and either a) Towner went over to him, or b) Desroe came over to Towner, I could perhaps add c) that Towner called over.

      And then I found this photograph taken in 1967.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	B01B5947-74BF-4A78-9E27-0504FAAA1123.jpg
Views:	271
Size:	254.2 KB
ID:	806621

      It unmistakably shows a rail track. It even has rolling stock on it to the left. Do you deny that this is a track George? Might it have been put there after the assassination. It possible but have we any proof of that?

      All that I then did was to produce 2 photographs taken at the time of the assassination. One slightly later than the other.

      Click image for larger version

Name:	5FC74B48-2F97-4D68-9F82-7442D317775C.jpg
Views:	270
Size:	99.8 KB
ID:	806620

      Click image for larger version

Name:	CE7F59B7-92FC-44C3-BDDC-FDFE2963EDE0.jpg
Views:	264
Size:	78.8 KB
ID:	806619

      Can you explain them?

      I can’t.

      I just present them.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Genius.

        The first photograph shows the front of the Knoll. Why didn’t you post a photograph of Ruth Paine’s house saying “I can’t see a rail track.”

        The second photograph looks like it’s to the left 0f where the track would have been.

        The third only shows the area a car’s length or so away from the fence. As I said in my original post the track was closest to the fence at around 2 cars length away - I’d actually re-assess that to say 3 cars length.

        The fourth isn’t of a great quality.

        ​​​​​​…….

        I have to ask George…..what’s wrong with you?

        All that I did and said was in response to your derogatory comments about the Towner/ Boone/ Desroe evidence which, for whatever biased reason, you appear unwilling to consider. I initially said that Desroe could have been on the rail track to the right and either a) Towner went over to him, or b) Desroe came over to Towner, I could perhaps add c) that Towner called over.

        And then I found this photograph taken in 1967.

        Click image for larger version  Name:	B01B5947-74BF-4A78-9E27-0504FAAA1123.jpg Views:	0 Size:	254.2 KB ID:	806621

        It unmistakably shows a rail track. It even has rolling stock on it to the left. Do you deny that this is a track George? Might it have been put there after the assassination. It possible but have we any proof of that?

        All that I then did was to produce 2 photographs taken at the time of the assassination. One slightly later than the other.

        Click image for larger version  Name:	5FC74B48-2F97-4D68-9F82-7442D317775C.jpg Views:	0 Size:	99.8 KB ID:	806620

        Click image for larger version  Name:	CE7F59B7-92FC-44C3-BDDC-FDFE2963EDE0.jpg Views:	0 Size:	78.8 KB ID:	806619

        Can you explain them?

        I can’t.

        I just present them.
        Try this photo taken on 22/11/63 (https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/img/10005184). Not sure when (time) exactly. It is much better quality - if you download and zoom in you can see what I think look a lot like seats in the carriage. There is also something to the left that looks a bit like a freight type wagon (but could be the rear of a lorry etc, can't see the front of it).

        There are train tracks in the photo you found (note that photo is 4 years later so might explain why they look a bit derelict in places)

        Why would anyone make up a conversation like that, that would be very easily shown to be wrong?

        Answer: CTs lack of intellectual humility - just cannot admit they are wrong!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          [I]

          Cry foul? I’m not ‘crying foul’ Fishy….don’t twist things. It was you and George who complained about me. I merely pointed out that you have said just as much and just the same type of comments that I have.




          ''Out of the 1711 posts made on this thread Jon has made no more that 3 or 4 posts.''

          Yes !! claiming Oswald didnt kill or shoot Kennedy or Tippit



          So as ive asked , are you including him as a conspiracy theory nut ,loonie and all the the rest of the the descriptions youve used over this thread ? Just a yes or no will do .

          ​​
          '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
            [I]

            Cry foul? I’m not ‘crying foul’ Fishy….don’t twist things. It was you and George who complained about me. I merely pointed out that you have said just as much and just the same type of comments that I have.
            I agree with your last sentence ,no arguement there .
            '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 Aethelwulf View Post

              Try this photo taken on 22/11/63 (https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/img/10005184). Not sure when (time) exactly. It is much better quality - if you download and zoom in you can see what I think look a lot like seats in the carriage. There is also something to the left that looks a bit like a freight type wagon (but could be the rear of a lorry etc, can't see the front of it).

              There are train tracks in the photo you found (note that photo is 4 years later so might explain why they look a bit derelict in places)

              Why would anyone make up a conversation like that, that would be very easily shown to be wrong?

              Answer: CTs lack of intellectual humility - just cannot admit they are wrong!
              As a follow-up, having looked at a range of other high quality shots of the Dealey Plaza site on the same website as above (especially this one if you zoom in (https://library.uta.edu/digitalgalle...w/10002281.jpg), the pullman conversation must have been between the picket fence and the clearly functional line, which passes within metres of the grassy knoll. You can see on the the photo linked above taken two days after the assassination, the lines in the car park were already derelict and not in use. Whatever that thing is, it can't be a carriage unless it was already on a lorry (but I think this would have been noted at the time), but more likely a bus. Did find photos of these rails being used and looks like relate to construction of the triple underpass.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                FrankO,

                There are 35 recorded statements by witnesses who described the last two shots as coming very close together.

                'Oswald’s rifle clearly didn’t jam'
                And how would anyone except the assassin know that? It might explain the gap between the first and second shots.
                In fact jamming might explain something that has often puzzled JFK buffs: why the assassin did not take the easier option of shooting the president when he was turning from Houston Street into Elm.
                Ive often wondered that myself Cobalt, as you say only the shooter would know if there was a jam with the rifle.

                If not, then its remarkable he wouldnt have fired the first shot when the Presidential Limousine first straighten up onto Houston st .I make it around 60 to 65 metere in a clear straight line of fire with nowhere for the limo to maneuver.

                Also the turn into Elm st on that corner at a very low speed at the closest point to the TSBD would have made for an easy kill even for a poor marksman .

                Conclusion ..if the rifle didnt jam there is only one reason he didnt shoot [well an obvious one for me ] is there was another shooter on the Grassy Knoll waiting to shoot from the front at the same point roughly as the tsbd shooter fired from behind, as well as a possible 3rd shooter . imo

                '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


                • The decision (if it was that) not to shoot as the presidential limousine was turning slowly almost underneath the TSBD has generated a few other explanations. One is that the assassin would have exposed himself to return fire from the armed security personnel travelling in the follow up car. Another is that concealment is a basic requirement for any sniper assassin since it causes confusion amongst the security staff as to where the shots are coming from. (That was very successful on the day, and some might say has remained successful ever since.) And of course unless he is on a kamikaze mission, the assassin wants to make good his escape. (Whoever the sniper was- Oswald or A.N. Other- that was also successful initially at least.)

                  On the last point it’s hard to understand the assassin’s reason for hiding the rifle, when he had left behind the ejected shells. That’s what allowed the DPD to focus on the 6th floor window pretty quickly and at first they thought the chicken bones and empty pop bottle had been part of the assassin’s lunch. I think the official record indicates that the discarded times had been moved from where Bonnie Ray Williams said he left them but I stand to be corrected.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                    As a follow-up, having looked at a range of other high quality shots of the Dealey Plaza site on the same website as above (especially this one if you zoom in (https://library.uta.edu/digitalgalle...w/10002281.jpg), the pullman conversation must have been between the picket fence and the clearly functional line, which passes within metres of the grassy knoll. You can see on the the photo linked above taken two days after the assassination, the lines in the car park were already derelict and not in use. Whatever that thing is, it can't be a carriage unless it was already on a lorry (but I think this would have been noted at the time), but more likely a bus. Did find photos of these rails being used and looks like relate to construction of the triple underpass.
                    Could English subtitles be provided for those of us that "lack intellectual humility". I'm afraid that I don't speak Total Gobbledegook.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Train-8a.jpg
Views:	219
Size:	77.6 KB
ID:	806630
                    They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                    Out of a misty dream
                    Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                    Within a dream.
                    Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                    ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      I'm afraid that I don't speak Total Gobbledegook.
                      Not what this thread will record for posterity I'm afraid (nice cropping of the original image by the way)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        Not what this thread will record for posterity I'm afraid (nice cropping of the original image by the way)
                        Well kindly clarify for posterity - is that the "clearly functional line" upon which the Pullman Dining car was parked on 22 Nov 1963? Or was Desroe standing on the back of a Pullman Dining car that was loaded on a lorry, or perhaps he was on your postulated bus which was disguised as a Pullman Dining car???
                        They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                        Out of a misty dream
                        Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                        Within a dream.
                        Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post





                          ''Out of the 1711 posts made on this thread Jon has made no more that 3 or 4 posts.''

                          Yes !! claiming Oswald didnt kill or shoot Kennedy or Tippit



                          So as ive asked , are you including him as a conspiracy theory nut ,loonie and all the the rest of the the descriptions youve used over this thread ? Just a yes or no will do .

                          ​​
                          No I don’t because he hasn’t made any silly posts. There are certainly many conspiracy theorists that I simply disagree with but I wouldn’t describe them as loonies. Some involved in the conspiracy debate I would definitely describe as looneys and crackpots and people that I wouldn’t trust …… Roger Craig, Beverley Oliver, Charles Crenshaw, Oliver Stone, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Beverley Oliver, Dr. McClelland, Jean Hill, Bonar Menninger, David Lifton, to name but a few. The full list would be a very, very long one.

                          I wouldn’t have lumped you and George into it if you had discussed the case within the bounds of reason and not simply piled in with loads of questions for me without feeling any obligation to actually answer any of my questions or points.

                          Ill ask a question and I won’t restrict you to one word…..hypothetically….would it be possible to have a reasoned debate on the ripper murders if the conversation went like this? -

                          Well what about the testimony of Mr X - manipulated by the police.

                          Well what about the MacNaghten Memorandum - forged.

                          What about when Miss Y said …… - well she would say that, she was in on it too.

                          Ok, so what about the graffito - faked.

                          And what about the evidence of the Miller’s Court photo - doctored.

                          And Mr X’s admittance to the asylum - forged.

                          And when someone asks for the evidence for the above the response is - well it must be forged and faked because it doesn’t conform to what a section of the witnesses stated and what I myself believe.

                          All reasoned debate is derailed with that approach.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            I agree with your last sentence ,no arguement there .
                            So why have you and George never admitted it and why the refusal to respond?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Well kindly clarify for posterity - is that the "clearly functional line" upon which the Pullman Dining car was parked on 22 Nov 1963? Or was Desroe standing on the back of a Pullman Dining car that was loaded on a lorry, or perhaps he was on your postulated bus which was disguised as a Pullman Dining car???
                              The actual point is that none of us know and yet you seem keen to completely dismiss Desroe based on this unknown.

                              - There were rail tracks behind the Grassy Knoll.
                              - I know of no evidence that would allow us to call Towner a liar or to call into question what he said.
                              - Likewise Desroe.
                              - We know that Eugene Boone also saw an employee connected to the Pullman in that location.
                              - Desroe said that he was moved from the overpass by Offficer’s and we know for a fact that there were indeed Officer’s there.
                              - We know that Desroe was looking toward the assassination but saw nothing behind the fence.
                              - And there does appear to be some large (clearly movable) object behind the white structure.

                              So why would this be of no interest to anyone interested in the case and who is looking at it with an open mind? Who wouldn’t want to look at it and consider it?

                              More importantly though, who would want to dismiss it out of hand?
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                                Hi Caz,

                                I see your logic there. But the problem remains that we don't know where Oswald claimed to be at the time of the shooting. He must obviously have been asked this at some point during his 12 hours of questioning yet all I have seen are the sketchy notes of Captain Will Fritz which were redrafted some time after Oswald was killed. The 'out front with Bill Shelly' may refer to that but it seems that Fritz's notes are not always in the chronological order of events. After his arrest I doubt that either the DPD or his co-workers were much interested in seeing if Oswald could establish an alibi. Maybe you are right and Oswald had no confirmed alibi for the time but I have explained why I think he had a decent alibi for 12.23 which gave him little time to act.

                                Even if Oswald had been photographed next to Bill Lovelady in the Altgens photo (some claim that he was) the conspiracy that I think took place could still have been successful. Oswald's role would have been reduced to that of an accomplice who provided the weapon and prepared the sniper's nest. Since nobody saw Oswald fire the shots ( although some are confident Brennan as good as did) then the narrative works just as well.
                                Hi cobalt,

                                I trust you had a good weekend.

                                For conspiracy believers, the problem very much remains the fact that nobody who heard the gunfire was in Oswald's company at the time, or they would have known if he wasn't holding or firing a rifle. No conspirator on earth could have engineered that situation, or predicted it, or known that it had been the case as the events unfolded and Oswald was arrested. They'd have needed to regroup and reassess the situation to see which role - if any - they could still get him set him up for: lone gunman or accomplice. Before they could do this, they would first have needed to learn if the unpalatable truth was that their chosen 'patsy' had not been alone and unobserved when the shots were heard. The even less palatable truth might even have been that he was in view of one or more innocent witnesses all morning, giving him no opportunity to have done anything to help a sniper with the weapon or nest.

                                You can't set up an innocent man for a role in any of this, when you don't know who else could be with him, or who was with him, when he is supposedly engaging in a criminal act. This was Oswald's workplace after all, so nobody could have expected him to isolate himself from everyone else in the building at any point just to fit in with their own dastardly plans.

                                This is incompatible with an innocent Oswald going about his usual business that day. By stark contrast, Oswald's witnessed and unwitnessed movements within the TSBD appear to be compatible with a man in sole charge of his own actions, who was on a personal mission to kill JFK.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 03-20-2023, 02:24 PM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X