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 Joshua Rogan View Post
    Leaving aside the personal spat, there are several photos from 1963 which show two dark train carriages coupled together and parked in the rail yard / parking lot area. Couldn't one of these be the Pullman car where Desroe and his wife were said to have been?
    It would certainly provide a view of the rear of the picket fence.


    Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot_2023-03-23-12-44-09-419.jpg Views:	4 Size:	200.3 KB ID:	807018 Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot_2023-03-23-12-44-09-419.jpg Views:	4 Size:	200.3 KB ID:	807019
    Cheers Joshua,

    The one on the left is a distance away but the other is a possible. I’m still intrigued by the ‘object’ seen through the pergola (on the right)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	58377475-6201-4343-AE26-119AF4ABA268.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	102.8 KB
ID:	807027

    compared to this one taken just after.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	43078C76-BE58-4740-80A3-A1DEB387779A.jpg
Views:	203
Size:	80.1 KB
ID:	807028

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


      Is anyone else here familiar with the phenomenon of déjà vu?

      Reading the above condemnation of GB by HS is almost exactly the same as reading HS's condemnations of me!

      Especially the nice touch about manipulating evidence.

      This is from someone who claims that all three witnesses in Mexico City who said that 'Oswald' was blond were wrong!

      This is from the poster who says that when Oswald's landlady said that she saw him leaving his lodgings wearing a dark jacket, she was wrong!

      This is from the poster who, when I pointed out the many cases of Oswald's being impersonated, wrote this:

      Normal people don’t assume impersonation when they hear of someone being mis-identified.​

      A man who drove a showroom car at 70 mph on a test drive, said he would have enough money to buy the car come 23 November 1963, and gave his name as Lee Oswald, was mis-identified​,according to HS.

      No impersonation occurred, according to HS.

      But according to the same HS, the three witnesses in Mexico City correctly identified a man who was about ten years older than Oswald, several inches shorter than Oswald, and had blond hair, as Oswald!

      So much for manipulation of evidence!
      Oh boo-hoo. Why don’t you just stick to the evidence instead of adopting the ‘Im a victim’ stance.

      Remind us all who only recently came back after a lengthy ban?

      I’m not going waste my time answering your silly points.

      Why do you disregard all of the witnesses that don’t agree with your position?

      Far more people in Mexico City identified Oswald than got it wrong. Far more. I’ve listed them on here. You pick 3 that don’t. Very clever.

      If you want to take notice of the usual clowns that any police officer will tell you plague crimes like this then that’s entirely up to you. People lie…people misidentify…these are facts. These are dangerous in the hands of conspiracists though because they allow you to weave fantasies.

      Now stick to the case and ditch the bleating.
      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

        You tried to distract from the proven lie about the curtain rods and the fact that the parcel was clearly much larger that a lunch packet by quibbling over the exact length&#8230


        That is one of the most remarkable comments I have read here.

        What you call quibbling is at the very heart of the matter.

        You are more than happy to use Frazier's evidence to prove that Oswald took a long package into the TSBD, but you imply that he himself was quibbling when he stated that it could not possibly have contained a rifle or the components of a rifle because it was not long enough.

        He was able to substantiate his assertion by demonstrating that a Carcano could not have been carried in the way that Oswald carried the package.

        If you accept Frazier as a credible witness, then you have to accept that Oswald did not carry a Carcano into the TSBD.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

          Yes, indeed, GB.

          And it's the same Howard Brennan who could not pick Oswald out of a line-up and who later explained that he could have picked him out if he hadn't been afraid of the communists.

          And it's the same Howard Brennan whom HS considers to be a credible witness while complaining that I am not capable of posting what he calls sensible comments.
          It’s impossible to discuss a case sensibly with someone like you. I’ve just posted a short list of hopeless witness that conspiracy theorists regularly use and yet you criticise Brennan. Stop digging yourself into holes. It’s embarrassing.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

          Comment


          • Let’s talk about poor witnesses used by CT’s and how you couldn’t trust Mark Lane to tell you the time.


            My comments are emboldened.


            At the Warren Commission:


            Bowers: The sounds came from either up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.

            Ball: Where you able to tell which?

            Bowers: No; I could not.



            As we’ve said and as some have tried to deny on here….an echo chamber.


            …..


            He then went on to discuss the reverberation in the area between the underpass and the TSBD which, from his long experience, made it difficult to distinguish the origins of some sounds. Then he describes people around the underpass area. Then talking about the time of the shooting he said:


            At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all the way to the top of the incline. (This was what a few others said but we know from footage, and from the officer himself, that this didn’t happen - so Bowers was clearly repeating what he’d heard from others)


            ……


            Then when asked if he’d seen anyone near the fence he said:


            Bowers: Directly in line, toward the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket.

            Ball: Were they standing together or standing separately?

            Bowers: They we’re standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.



            So they weren’t doing anything wrong, like holding a rifle for example, they were standing a distance apart and they looked unconnected, so if one was the shooter why did the other not come forward? And no one else saw them by the way.



            Then….



            Ball: Were the two men there at the time?


            Bowers: I - as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The one in the white shirt, yes; I think, he was.

            So he saw no one with a rifle and no one making his escape. And if one or two of them were still in place why did none of those that immediately ran to the fence see anyone?



            Then…



            Ball: When you said that there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?

            Bowers: I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot, which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.



            Could anything be more vague than this?


            ….



            In an affidavit on the day of the assassination Bowers mentioned absolutely nothing about this ‘commotion’ or about seeing anyone near the fence.


            …..


            After Mark Lane got hold of him in 1966 he suddenly remember seeing a flash of light or smoke. Isn’t it a remarkably consistency how witnesses memories tend to improve after a chat with Mr. Lane?

            …..


            The standard of CT witnesses is in general appalling.

            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
              If you accept Frazier as a credible witness, then you have to accept that Oswald did not carry a Carcano into the TSBD.
              But, as I pointed out earlier, Frazier described Oswald as having blond hair. If you think he's reliable, why do you think other witnesses describing him this way means he was impersonated?​

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                But, as I pointed out earlier, Frazier described Oswald as having blond hair. If you think he's reliable, why do you think other witnesses describing him this way means he was impersonated?​

                I didn't say that everything Frazier said must be true, but if he saw Oswald carrying a package and it fitted in between his chin and cup of hand, there is no room for error.

                I have not yet been able to find his description of Oswald's hair colour in his testimony, but you quote him as mentioning three colours - blond, brown and red.

                That doesn't seem like the blond hair described by the three Mexico City witnesses.

                And they aged him ten years and knocked about four inches off his height.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                  I didn't say that everything Frazier said must be true, but if he saw Oswald carrying a package and it fitted in between his chin and cup of hand, there is no room for error.

                  And Frazier said that Oswald twice mentioned the curtain rods. Once on the Thursday and once on the Friday? Frazier told his sister what Oswald had said and she confirmed it when asked, and they both said this on the day of the assassination. What reason would they have had for lying about this and what specific evidence do you have for them lying? They very obviously were being honest and Oswald lied about the curtain rods. Why would an innocent Oswald have lied?

                  I have not yet been able to find his description of Oswald's hair colour in his testimony, but you quote him as mentioning three colours - blond, brown and red.

                  That doesn't seem like the blond hair described by the three Mexico City witnesses.

                  Because they were describing someone that wasn’t Oswald or a person that they had invented.

                  And they aged him ten years and knocked about four inches off his height.

                  So they were clearly describing another man.
                  Answer this one simple question - if our conspirators were setting up Lee Harvey Oswald by using impersonators, why the hell would they use impersonators that looked absolutely nothing like him?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                  Comment


                  • The short version of the evidence of Oswald being in Mexico City.

                    …… Duran spent much more time with Oswald than Azcue and never wavered in her belief that the man really was Lee Harvey Oswald.


                    ……. Alfredo Mirabal Diaz, who was training to replace Azcue and was one of only three people who saw Oswald at the consulate positively identified that the man seeking the visa was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.


                    …… Oswald’s visa application bears the date stamp September 27th, 1963, the day he arrived in Mexico City. September 27th was also typed on in Spanish.


                    …… Duran told Oswald that he needed a photograph for his application and recommended a few places nearby. He returned on the afternoon of the same day with the photos which Duran checked to ensure they matched the man in front of her. They did. The photo is definitely Oswald.


                    …..CIA handwriting experts confirmed that the writing on the application. The HSCA also had their experts check the handwriting. They confirmed that it was Oswald’s.


                    …..Duran said that Oswald became angry and red and was almost in tears. Oswald was known to get like this when he didn’t get his own way. (This was a man who beat his wife remember)


                    ….. Would a man trying to pass himself off as Oswald and con himself a visa really have wanted to behave like this and draw attention to himself, possibly causing them to look even closer or more unfavourably at his application?


                    …..The WC and the HSCA confirmed that the handwriting on the hotel register was Oswald’s


                    …..The owner/manager of the hotel and the maid identified the man that stayed there as Lee Harvey Oswald.


                    ….The desk clerk and the watchman who got the guest a taxi both identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald.


                    …..The woman that owned the place near the hotel where the guest ate several times identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald,


                    …… All of the witnesses who saw him said that he was always alone.


                    …..In a letter to the Russian Embassy Oswald recounted the trouble that he’d had at the Cuban consulate.


                    …..On the 27th and the 28th Oswald also went to the Russian Embassy. The three staff that he spoke too all identified him as the man that they saw on TV being killed by Jack Ruby.


                    …… Oswald told his wife about his plan to go to Cuba and his trip to Mexico and the red tape problems that he had there.


                    … After his arrest Oswald told Postal Inspector Harry Holmes during his interrogation that he’d gone to Mexico to try to get to Cuba.


                    ……..Duran wanted to help him even though she couldn’t at the time so she gave him her name and the consulates number on a piece of paper which was found in Oswald’s possession.​

                    We even have the Mexican novelist Elena Garro de Paz, telling an American diplomat in December of 1963 that she’d seen Oswald at a party in Mexico City.


                    Please stop saying that Oswald wasn’t in Mexico City as he very clearly was. How much more evidence can you need?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                    Comment


                    • I see you've copied and pasted points you made some time ago and which I comprehensively refuted.

                      I will just mention that:

                      Duran and Lopez were quite clear that the man who claimed to be Oswald was nothing like him physically and this fact was noted by the HSCA, whose opinion I quoted when I refuted your statements.

                      The third witness who you claimed identified Oswald did nothing of the kind, stating that he did not pay much attention to him.

                      I also posted memos from agencies noting that Oswald could not have been the man in question because of the man's evident difficulty with the Russian language.

                      You repeat your claim that Oswald was sent to a photo shop to get his passport photo, but you don't mention the evidence that the man went through the motions of going to a photo shop and then came back to the consulate with an old photograph of the real Oswald.

                      Again you mention a letter purportedly written by Oswald about his supposed visit to the consulate, but not the evidence that it was a fake.

                      And in order to sustain your case that the man in Mexico City was Oswald, you claim that all three witnesses who said the man was blond were wrong!

                      How much more evidence is required to prove that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City?


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                        In justification, I ask the following questions:

                        If LBJ was genuinely so shocked and devastated by the assassination of JFK that in addressing the people, he said I ask for your help [dramatic pause] and God's, why was he smiling (and possibly winking) at Congressman Albert Thomas, who was smiling and winking at him, while Jacqueline Kennedy was standing next to him, visibly shaken and covered with the dead President's blood?
                        If you're going to hate LBJ, hate him for real things.

                        Here's the "I ask for your help and God's" speech. Note the total lack of smiling, winking, Mrs Kennedy, and Albert Thomas.

                        Jackie Kennedy and Albert Thomas were present at LBJ's swearing in. There is no video. The photos show LBJ look at Albert Thomas once, but it is impossible to see LBJ's expression. Thomas is neither smiling nor winking.​

                        Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                        Why, if LBJ really considered himself merely the custodian of Kennedy's political legacy, did he issue two executive orders reversing ones issued by JFK, just after taking office?
                        LBJ did not do that. Feel free to hate LBJ, but don't hate him for things he never did.

                        Executive Order 11128 signed November 23, 1963 - Closing Government departments and agencies on November 25, 1963 as a day of mourning for JFK.

                        Executive Order 11129 signed November 29, 1963 - Designating certain facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and of the Department of Defense, in the State of Florida, as the John F. Kennedy Space Center

                        Executive Order 11130 signed November 29, 1963 - Appointing a commission to report upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy

                        As President, LBJ did not reverse any of JFK's policies and pushed harder for Civil Rights than JFK ever had.

                        LBJ asked JFK's Cabinet to stay and they did, including Robert Kennedy.

                        Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
                        Why, if LBJ had no malice aforethought, was practically his first act on moving in to the White House to instruct his shocked secretary to remove anything connected with the Kennedys?
                        LBJ's first act on reaching the White House was to write notes to JFK's children and hand them to his secretary to deliver them.

                        Dear John— It will be many years before you understand fully what a great man your father was. His loss is a deep personal tragedy for all of us, but I wanted you particularly to know that I share your grief—You can always be proud of him— Affectionately Lyndon B. Johnson

                        Dearest Caroline— Your father’s death has been a great tragedy for the Nation, as well as for you, and I wanted you to know how much my thoughts are of you at this time. He was a wise and devoted man. You can always be proud of what he did for his country— Affectionately Lyndon B. Johnson

                        Jacqueline Kennedy choose to leave the White House two weeks after her husband's funeral.

                        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                          I think that's wrong.

                          It is reported that JFK had just as big a file on Hoover, for example, as Hoover had on him.
                          So random rumors with no evidence that such a file existed?

                          Even JFK had compromising information on Hoover, publicizing JFK's behavior would have been a cheaper, easier, and safer method of destroying JFK. It would also have zero risk of being executed for murder and treason.

                          This was true for J Edgar Hoover and even more true for the billions of people who weren't J Edgar Hoover.

                          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Answer this one simple question - if our conspirators were setting up Lee Harvey Oswald by using impersonators, why the hell would they use impersonators that looked absolutely nothing like him?

                            Answer this one simple question:

                            if the man in Mexico City was really Oswald, why did he suddenly lose his ability to speak Russian?

                            And why did he 'go' to photo shops to get his passport photo, but return to the consulate with an old photo of Oswald?

                            And why did he appear to be about ten years older than he appeared to be in Dallas and several inches shorter too?

                            Ask anyone else here - since you're so keen on the idea of asking me to find someone who agrees with me - what they consider more likely: that three witnesses in Mexico City mistakenly thought that Oswald was blond, mistakenly thought he was ten years older than he was, and mistakenly thought he was several inches shorter than he was - or that someone was impersonating him?

                            Take your time.

                            It could take you a few years to find someone who agrees with you.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post



                              Thomas is neither smiling nor winking.​




                              Here is the photograph.



                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • It emerged later that when Duran was interviewed by the Mexican authorities soon after the assassination she described the man who visited the Cuban consul's office as being "blond-haired" and with "blue or green eyes". Neither detail fits in with the authentic Oswald. But these details had been removed from the statement by the time it reached the Warren Commission.

                                Duran was interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. This testimony is classified. However, in 1979 Duran told the author, Anthony Summers that she told the HSCA that the man who visited the office was about her size (5 feet 3.5 inches). This created problems as Oswald was 5 feet 9.5 inches. When Summers showed Duran a film of Oswald taken at the time of his arrest, Duran said: "The man on the film is not like the man I saw here in Mexico City."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X