JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have been waiting for you to respond to the questions raised by Frank and Caz (#1804, #1806) on your "Pullman car behind the picket fence" theory, and wondering if you would use in your reply to them the same vituperation that you employed with my comments. But you have chosen to skulk in the shadows without even the integrity to acknowledge ownership of your preposterous theory.

So to try and regain some credibility you try to accuse me of doing exactly what you have been doing for the last few days.

Firstly, I hadn’t noticed the points and I can’t see a post where you say “what about a response…..” until now. If I missed them then why would I be looking back and see them now? You were too busy sulking to ask me for a response until now.

Secondly, post #1804 is by you, not Frank.

Anyway Frank said….

I haven’t studied this particular subject in any detail, George, but if it was a lie, then it must have been a humongous one. Also, why would anybody need that Pullman car there, anyway, if it’s supposed to have been a lie? What would have been the goal of introducing it?

and Caz said…

That would be my question too, Frank.

A single Pullman car would have been quite distinctive if it was there, but even more conspicuous by its absence, if someone had invented one for no apparent reason. It could instantly have been established as a lie, if it was simply never there to be seen by anyone or captured on film. In that case it may just as well have been an escaped giraffe. Where's the relevance?

They are both asking why anyone would lie about something like this? I agree. Why would they?

……

Ill try and explain again as your comprehension appears to have gone astray probably because it’s been warped by your opinion of me.

I don’t have a theory George (preposterous or otherwise) I read of a piece of evidence that I hadn’t read of before (or that I might have read but paid too little attention to) and unlike you I don’t just ignore evidence or dismiss it out of hand because it’s inconvenient.

You made the sarcastic (but true) point that you can’t have a Pullman carriage on a car park with tracks for it to sit on. I considered this point and then considered that when a witness makes a short statement they don’t describe every single detail so I considered 3 possible (that’s all, just possibilities) that a) Towner might have crossed the fence (as others did) and walked the few yards over to the tracks on the left to talk to Desroe, b) that he could have called over to him, or c) that Desroe, after seeing Towner, got down from the Pullman and walked over to Desroe. I claimed none of these as a fact but just as possibilities.

Then I took the time to look for photographs of the area behind the fence and found the one taken in 1967 which clearly showed a rail track near to the fence. I didn’t invent, forge or fake this photograph. So this at least pointed to the possibility of there being a carriage close to the fence.

I then found the other two photographs which appear to show something at least like a carriage behind the white structure. Where I found the photographs there was a suggestion by a conspiracy theorist that this was a railway carriage which had been somehow ‘airbrushed’ from the later photograph which is typical of a CT (ignoring the fact that trains move)

So I don’t have a theory George I’ve simply presented the evidence as it exists. And as Caz and George both correctly pointed out, why would a man (Towner) make up such a stupid, easily disprovable lie?

……

Perhaps instead of indulging in childish whining and point scoring exercises you might address the actual evidence with calmness and reason. If you have evidence to disprove Towner and Desroe then I’ll listen….it might exist…but I prefer to see evidence before I dismiss things….unlike a man who will dismiss anything that doesn’t emanate from a conspiracy theorist. And while your at it perhaps you could respond to the 200 other points that you’ve missed whilst “sulking in the shadows” for the last few days.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regular posters know how rarely I retaliate against any provocation, but that must be one of the most naive comments I have ever read about political assassination.

How could conspirators have influenced which newspapers Oswald did or didn’t read? How could they have influenced which advertisements he did or didn’t read? How could they have influenced which one’s he did or didn’t answer? How could they have known which companies the Employment Commission could have with suitable jobs available? How could they have known which ones Oswald would attend? How could they have influence every single individual that interviewed him? How could they have manipulated Linnie May Randle into attending a coffee morning?

Just for once…..get real PI.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regular posters know how rarely I retaliate against any provocation, but that must be one of the most naive comments I have ever read about political assassination.

So you were kicked off the site for an extended period for ‘not retaliating?’ Ok….moving on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, something so incredibly public as Kennedy's assassination in an open car, that even had the back seat raised up for better visibility of the President, no bubble top due to the nice weather, and Secret Service agents requested by the President not to ride on the car-- plus hundreds of witnesses in the crowd-- it just *was* a circus.

There are a couple of documentaries about the earlier attempt; I just saw "Kenndy's Suicide Bomber" on the Smithsonian Channel.

Palvich(?) was a 70 year old man in 1960 who was incensed at Kennedy's victory over Nixon. He lived alone in the small town of Belmont, New Hampshire, where he was known as a grouchy and opinionated man. One of his best acquaintances was the local postmaster, Tom Murphy, who knew of Palvich's anti-Kennedy sentiments.

Palvich had worked with explosives in World War I, and decided that to save the country from Kennedy's connection to the Catholic Church, he needed to assainate the President-Elect. He rigged his old Buick with dynamite and napalm, and set off to follow Kennedy's victory tour. At every pit stop, he bought a postcard to send back to Murphy, with comments such as "You probably won't see me again, but the world will hear of me soon." Murphy eventually reported his friend to the authorities, and an FBI agent went after Palvich

In December, 1960, Palvich caught up with Kennedy in Palm Beach, Florida. He pulled up outside the house where the Kennedys were staying, and was about to set off his bomb car but saw Jackie and Caroline near JFK, and changed his mind about hurting innocents.
He tried again later on a Sunday, near the Catholic church they were attending, but arrived after Kennedy was already inside. He tried going into the church to get closer, but a security man directed him to the rear seats, and Palvich left.

The FBI tracked him to his hotel, took custody of him, and found Palvich's handwritten last will and testament, as well as a manifesto of his intentions to kill Kennedy. Palvich confessed proudly. He was quietly judged and sent off to a mental hospital.

Kennedy requested little press coverage, to prevent copy-cat plots, which is why few people today know of this case. Palvich died in 1970.

The documentary included a demo of the car bomb to see if Palvich could have succeeded in his plan. Because of the car's structure and heavy engine shielding, it blew the car apart (and the dummy inside it), but the standing dummies were untouched, except by the ripple wave that might have affected human bodies later.

Thanks for that Pat. The story certainly rings a bell.

Kennedy himself took a pretty fatalistic view of potential assassination attempts reasoning that no matter how many Secret Service men he surrounded himself with they could block a bullet from a high powered rifle fired from a high building. I think that we should think twice before making egregious claims about people trying to do their duty under difficult circumstances. No matter what training people have there’s no telling how any individual might or might not react under traumatic circumstances. Care should be taken when we try and interpret events. Kellerman and Greer are the case in point. They both had distinguished careers and wouldn’t have been selected to protect the president had they not have had. There was absolutely nothing that they could have done to save the Kennedy. The evidence tells us that Greer was distraught after the event. So much so that Jackie Kennedy insisted that he drive the presidents casket as a small way of trying to make him feel less to blame. Conspiracy theorist tend not to allow for examples of simple decency because they see everyone as evil plotters which I mind more than a little sad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They certainly did.

And they impersonated him in both the USA and Mexico, with people claiming to be and/or posing as Oswald driving cars, shooting bull's eyes at shooting ranges, saying he would be coming into money the day after the assassination, or demanding a visa for Cuba while declaring undying devotion to the Cuban revolution in blond hair - and somehow managing to shrink himself by several inches and age himself by ten years at the same time.

Again, you maintain this very childish line of thinking. Normal people don’t assume impersonation when they hear of someone being mis-identified. All through history we have examples of people trying to claim that they were present or were in some way connected to significant events. It’s par for course for people to have claimed to have seen the presidents assassin. Is it reasonable or even remotely likely that our clever conspirators would have set up Oswald impersonators all over the place increasing the very obvious risk of being exposed. It’s a non-starter….fit only for conspiracy theorists to lap up.

And then the authorities kept such a close eye on him that they somehow did not notice that the Presidential motorcade would be passing by the building where he worked and YET the local police had his description ready to radio to local police and could never explain where they got it from.

Oswald had only been working there for 5 weeks. I can’t provide evidence at the moment (I’ll keep looking) but I’m sure that I’ve read somewhere that the FBI didn’t know that he’d started work at the TSBD? Do you hold the naive view that these bodies (local government, CIA, FBI) are totally infallible? This is CT thinking writ large. Every single error equates to something sinister through those conspiracy goggles.

And just because they were keeping an eye on him this doesn’t mean that they saw him as a threat to the President. The FBI were monitoring Martin Luther King but I’m fairly certain that they didn’t see him as a potential assassin.

I do wish that you would at least try to make the odd sensible post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that the same Howard Brennan that said he saw someone shooting from a standing position through a window that could only be opened up to waist level, and that said he saw the fatal head shot fired, and then turned to see the bullet strike Kennedy's head? Sir HS comes up with some fantasist witnesses.

And that’s what a conspiracy theorist considers conclusive disproof is it George.

Had Brennan ever been inside the TSBD? How could he have known how high the window was from the floor? He couldn’t. It’s yet another non-issue from the increasingly desperate conspiracy crowd.

“fantasist witnesses.”

From the man who used Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver and many more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Go back, you'll find it im not going to waste my time providing you with it again.

Another pathetic response.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer you tried the overwhelmingly garbage on the Richardson thread ,...

It didn't work for you there either.

Was that the thread were, at most, 2 people agreed with you (and one of them was George) and around 15 agreed with me. Yes it really didn’t work did it Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many of them same experts saw Kennedy's brains blown out on the day .

Get real.

Like Phil Willis (used by St. George) who in his original statement said that he couldn’t even see Kennedy.

Or Ed Hoffman who claimed to have seen events (years later) which were proven untrue…..even by his own family.

Like Beverley Oliver who took photos with a camera that wasn’t on sale in the US in 1963.

Like Dr. McClelland who changed his mind on the location of the wound 3 times and even once placed it on the left side of Kennedy’s head.

Like Dr. Carrico who when asked if he could have been mistaken said “absolutely.”

Or Aubrey Rike who only saw the body after it had been wrapped.

Or Dr. Charles Crenshaw, loopy conspiracy theorist who McClelland said greatly exaggerated his own role at Parkland.

Or Paul O’Connor who said that most of Kennedy’s brain was missing but ‘forgot’ to mention this staggering ‘fact’ at the HSCA.

Or some other witnesses who miraculously saw the back of Kennedy’s head whilst he was lying on his back?


Great witnesses Fishy

[Joshua Rogan]

It looks like darkish brown.

Mmm.
Interesting, then, that Buell Frasier described it as follows;

"Q: What colored hair did Lee Harvey Oswald have, as you recall?
A: He had a light colored hair. It looked like he had blond, kind of blond browny, maybe it had a red tint to it."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mmm.
Interesting, then, that Buell Frasier described it as follows;

"Q: What colored hair did Lee Harvey Oswald have, as you recall?
A: He had a light colored hair. It looked like he had blond, kind of blond browny, maybe it had a red tint to it."

Actually Joshua, looking at this colour arrest photo there does look to be a reddish tint. I wouldn’t have said ‘light’ though for sure.

https://time.com/3804560/an-end-to-conspiracy-rare-photo-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-arrest-suggests-why-hes-guilty/

[Joshua Rogan]

Balding

You jest, but one witness remarked on the high hairline of the man he had seen, not the "bushy-type" hair shown in Oswald's arrest photo.

[GBinOz]

No matter what training people have there’s no telling how any individual might or might not react under traumatic circumstances. Care should be taken when we try and interpret events. Kellerman and Greer are the case in point.

I can't see any ill intent on the part of Kellerman or Greer. The whole thing was over in less than 10 seconds. That's not much time to detect, reflect and react.

[Joshua Rogan]

Actually Joshua, looking at this colour arrest photo there does look to be a reddish tint. I wouldn’t have said ‘light’ though for sure.

I noticed that too.
I think it just goes to show that witness perception and description are very variable, especially something as naturally variable as hair colour.
As I mentioned to Dave, one witness described Oswald's hair in that photo as "bushy". I guess they had different standards in 1963.

[Joshua Rogan]

Can anyone refresh my memory on the significance of the Pullman car?