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 GBinOz View Post

    Textbook toxic Narcissist use of projection.
    I love the irony of a man who has spent weeks bleating about insults who’s every post of late has been simply an insult and nothing else.

    Hypocrite.

    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


      If I’d have been President I wouldn’t have bothered with a Warren Commission. Or an FBI report. Court next day, jury…..guilty. Electric chair. Prison sentences for conspiracy theorists. Jobs a good ‘un, as they say where I come from.

      It must be some place.

      I suppose it must have been a lyncher's paradise.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Read Reinventing History by Bugliosi.

        You should read the Bugliosi book but the issue is that you’d need to take 6 months out of your life to do it!

        Anyone that claims an interest in the case and hadn’t read Bugliosi really doesn’t merit an opinion.
        Six months.....
        It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

        All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Six months.....
          I quote from a review of Bugliosi's masterpiece:

          As a prosecutor, Bugliosi has a bag of tricks. When dealing with testimony of policemen that agree with his conclusions, he introduces them using their full title; mentions how many years, days, and, if possible, even hours, they've been dutifully on the force; describes their service as gallant and heroic; and never questions their infallible eptitude or integrity. Similarly, when dealing with experts, he reverently mentions their credentials (college degrees and employment experience). Original FBI reports are treated as reverent primary sources, something that witnesses should be held to if they ever change their story.

          Unfortunately, Bugliosi's bag of tricks gets him into trouble when confronted with a policeman, expert, or FBI report he doesn't agree with. Then, suddenly, he pulls out an alternative bag of tricks, producing witnesses that will attack the character of such people with caustic, even unsophisticated words like "zany" (as a noun), or proof that the adverse witness has a tendency to make up stories, or, in one case, even that the adverse witness is mentally retarded (p. 767).

          Another reviewer commented:

          Bugliosi's book, not unlike the Warren Report (which I have read), is intended to overwhelm you with its size...

          Bugliosi has the audacity to say that after reading his book, anyone who doesn't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, is a "fraud." The fact is that Bugliosi's book is so long and filled with an excess of undocumented opinion and factual inaccuracies that hardly anyone would ever pause long enough to read his entire book...

          Mark Lane's meticulously researched best-selling book, Rush to Judgment, has stood the test of time and the intense scrutiny of the FBI, the CIA and others who have gone over every sentence. We were told that one attorney who worked for the Warren Commission and who taught at UCLA law school, asked his students to check Lane's thousands of footnotes and they could find no inaccuracies. Despite the flawed assertions Bugliosi makes about Lane's work and cries that he was victorious over Lane in three debates, which was simply not true, he devotes an entire chapter of his book to attacking Lane. Lane is the only author who Bugliosi honors in such fashion in his 1612 pages. Like a prosecutor, Bugliosi is very selective in attempting to use "evidence" or testimony which fits his false claims to discredit Lane. He asks why Lane neglected to mention two witnesses in his book. Lane may not have mentioned hundreds of witnesses because there were thousands of "witnesses" in the case and even Bugliosi couldn't mention every one of them in his massive book. Lane, it was recognized by historians such as Bertrand Russell and Hugh Trevor-Roper proved definitively that there was a conspiracy and that the top FBI sharp-shooters could not duplicate what Oswald was to have done even with a target that was not moving.



          I suggest you ​find something better to do than waste six months of your life reading Bugliosi.

          I would also recommend a reading or re-reading of Rush to Judgment.

          It is different from some other critiques of the Warren Commission Report in that its author views it from the perspective of a defence lawyer, but it does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have been found guilty in a fair trial in which evidence was not suppressed and witnesses neither harassed nor eliminated.
          Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 03-25-2023, 12:53 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            So you’re trying to claim that Oswald carrying a revolver is somehow evidence of his innocence? I’ve heard it all now. We don’t know what his thoughts were after murdering Kennedy and Tippit or before. It’s not important. We just categorically know that he killed both men. You couldn’t name a single crime where there was so much evidence of a suspects guilt.

            If I’d have been President I wouldn’t have bothered with a Warren Commission. Or an FBI report. Court next day, jury…..guilty. Electric chair. Prison sentences for conspiracy theorists. Jobs a good ‘un, as they say where I come from. Oswald got off light. You George, Fishy and PI can have a traitor and a double murderer as your hero if you like but you’ll have to excuse me, Fiver, Wulf and others if we don’t join the “we love murderers” party.
            Totally and utterly sucked in by the WC garbage , what a joke.

            You'd send a man to the electic chair on trumped up lies and proven evidence that directly contradicts the WC and a bunch of circumstancial evidence against Oswald .

            Let me apologize right here and now to any living relatives of the Oswald family on be half of us here on casebook for the above reckless an savage remarks .

            Pathetic.

            .

            Comment


            • Oh let me add also as you forgot.

              George, Fishy ,p.i jemenges, and cobalt.

              You know the one you claimed doesn't make silly comments !!

              Like "Oswald didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit" "
              ,
              Nah not silly is he.

              Comment



              • Your just like PI and just like the majority of CT’s. Obsessed with some David Icke view of the world where everyone in power is thoroughly evil.

                (Herlock Shomes to Cobalt, # 2940)




                David Icke was barred from entering Australia in 2019, and the Netherlands only a few months ago, on account of his well-publicised anti-Semitic views.

                They are so well-known that it would be impossible to libel him by describing him as an anti-Semite.

                He has also been accused of Holocaust denial.

                His view of the world is so distorted that he has claimed that Combat 18, a neo-Nazi group, the numerals of whose name were derived from Adolf Hitler's initials, is a front for a certain Jewish charitable organisation.

                He has also claimed that Israel planned the 9/11 atrocities.

                I do not share David Icke's view of the world.

                I suggest you withdraw your insinuation that I share David Icke's view of the world.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                  I quote from a review of Bugliosi's masterpiece:

                  As a prosecutor, Bugliosi has a bag of tricks. When dealing with testimony of policemen that agree with his conclusions, he introduces them using their full title; mentions how many years, days, and, if possible, even hours, they've been dutifully on the force; describes their service as gallant and heroic; and never questions their infallible eptitude or integrity. Similarly, when dealing with experts, he reverently mentions their credentials (college degrees and employment experience). Original FBI reports are treated as reverent primary sources, something that witnesses should be held to if they ever change their story.

                  Unfortunately, Bugliosi's bag of tricks gets him into trouble when confronted with a policeman, expert, or FBI report he doesn't agree with. Then, suddenly, he pulls out an alternative bag of tricks, producing witnesses that will attack the character of such people with caustic, even unsophisticated words like "zany" (as a noun), or proof that the adverse witness has a tendency to make up stories, or, in one case, even that the adverse witness is mentally retarded (p. 767).

                  Another reviewer commented:

                  Bugliosi's book, not unlike the Warren Report (which I have read), is intended to overwhelm you with its size...

                  Bugliosi has the audacity to say that after reading his book, anyone who doesn't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, is a "fraud." The fact is that Bugliosi's book is so long and filled with an excess of undocumented opinion and factual inaccuracies that hardly anyone would ever pause long enough to read his entire book...

                  Mark Lane's meticulously researched best-selling book, Rush to Judgment, has stood the test of time and the intense scrutiny of the FBI, the CIA and others who have gone over every sentence. We were told that one attorney who worked for the Warren Commission and who taught at UCLA law school, asked his students to check Lane's thousands of footnotes and they could find no inaccuracies. Despite the flawed assertions Bugliosi makes about Lane's work and cries that he was victorious over Lane in three debates, which was simply not true, he devotes an entire chapter of his book to attacking Lane. Lane is the only author who Bugliosi honors in such fashion in his 1612 pages. Like a prosecutor, Bugliosi is very selective in attempting to use "evidence" or testimony which fits his false claims to discredit Lane. He asks why Lane neglected to mention two witnesses in his book. Lane may not have mentioned hundreds of witnesses because there were thousands of "witnesses" in the case and even Bugliosi couldn't mention every one of them in his massive book. Lane, it was recognized by historians such as Bertrand Russell and Hugh Trevor-Roper proved definitively that there was a conspiracy and that the top FBI sharp-shooters could not duplicate what Oswald was to have done even with a target that was not moving.



                  I suggest you ​find something better to do than waste six months of your life reading Bugliosi.

                  I would also recommend a reading or re-reading of Rush to Judgment.

                  It is different from some other critiques of the Warren Commission Report in that its author views it from the perspective of a defence lawyer, but it does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have been found guilty in a fair trial in which evidence was not suppressed and witnesses neither harassed nor eliminated.
                  Ok, so you’re reduced to quoting reviews. How about this one”

                  This book has taken some 20 years to write and it takes quite some time to read ! In a nutshell the author Vincent Bugliosi all but wraps the case up - finally. I say all but, because as we know, this case will never be wrapped up. What is "out there" in the public domain is now a blur of fact and fiction and our perception of the event is based on both good and poor information and our own ability to determine from the evidence what is indeed fact and what is fiction. And perhaps more to the point, how to interpret the information we have in a reasonable and accurate fashion - and in this case that is a tall order as the subject matter requires a good deal of expertise - or expert input - and sadly this is lacking in much of the published work on this case. This book however is authoritative and even if you disagree with the conclusion - you will no doubt appreciate it as a serious work and one that should not be taken lightly.

                  Despite the assassination being now some 43 years in the past, this subject still causes debate - some furious and the debate will no doubt rage on for many years to come and continue to entice us - for almost every key aspect of this case is shrouded in mystery - or is it ? The truth actually is this - if you accept that the information available to you regarding the medical, physical, ballistics and eye witness evidence is accurate and you study it exhaustively and you remain impartial, you would probably convict Lee Harvey Oswald of being the sole assassin. However this is no ordinary case and for that reason there will always be doubt. What is astonishing is that so many people think that there was a conspiracy in this case - some 70 % approx of the American public - why ? Because they have poor information.

                  Much of the material in this book is not new to me personally - or new per se. What is interesting here is the angle from which the subject is tackled - Bugliosi simply puts his prosecutor's hat on and in his own inimitable style presents a compelling case against Lee Harvey Oswald. His approach is such that the reader understands that even though at first it may well seem that a conspiracy existed, in fact there is little if no evidence to suggest there was. Yes, he is slightly selective at times and there are arguments for the pro conspiracy lobby that perhaps he does not tackle in full. What I admire most about the author though is his tenacity and ability to nail down witnesses and statements and show that much of the pro conspiracy testimony is mis leading or was made many years after the event and therefore could lack credibility.

                  I have read over 300 books on the Kennedy assassination many of them several times over - I only mention this because I do honestly believe that one cannot get a reasoned and balanced view on the subject from a small handful of books - and by small I mean less than a few dozen. And I think it is important for readers to know that. Most people, with all due respect base their view on the more sensationalist literature - and most of the published material is pro conspiracy, poorly written junk proposing fanciful theories around both the assassination and its perpetrators. Then add movies like Oliver Stones JFK to the mix and fact and fiction become a blur in what has become a multi million dollar industry. And let us not forget that - millions of dollars are generated annually from this case and many have achieved considerable wealth from it. Vincent Bugliosi has spent some 20 years on this book - I doubt he will profit hugely from it - so one could fairly and reasonably conclude that he is passionate about his subject and believes he is right in his convictions. I doubt the same can be said for many authors in this case - who I believe know perfectly well that much of what they are writing is pure fiction - but of course it may make them rich.


                  If you can find the time to read this book - it is approx 1700 pages long, you will see that the problem with the JFK assassination debate is that the public is largely mis informed. This subject does not often therefore provide a level headed debate based on common sense and reason. I know this from personal experience. Had I had this book 20 years ago when I started researching seriously into the subject I would have taken a very different view to the one I formed then and would not have spent the last 20 years searching for a second smoking gun that frankly probably never existed in the first place. I was convinced of a conspiracy - but no longer. In recent years far better and more scholarly publications have appeared and I can only conclude now there was no conspiracy. Of that I am now certain. This book will tell you why you should come to that same conclusion. It is a fine contribution to modern history and probably the finest on its subject to date. Many people formed opinions on this case in the 60s and 70s based on poor information and sensationalism. The published works that came forth at that time formed the basis of the JFK assassination industry and created the myth surrounding it. Indeed the belief that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is so well entrenched now, in all likely hood it will stay that way for ever - despite the fact that the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin is overwhelming.

                  This book is to be commended for highlighting some huge red herrings in this case - - namely the Grassy Knoll gunman and the Single Bullet Theory viability. John F. Kennedy was not shot from the Grassy Knoll and the Single Bullet Theory - however unlikely is feasible - that is a fact. As Mr. Holmes himself said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The fact is that many people have a problem with this in the JFK case - that is another debate, but one Mr Bugliosi does cover to some extent.

                  If you wish to gain an insight into the pro conspiracy side of the fence read Anthony Summers book "Conspiracy" or "Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why" by Gerald McKnight. Or if you want to find out what Bugliosi is saying in one twentieth of the time, read Mel Ayton. Larry Sturdivan's book "JFK Myths" is also a fine work on the medical & ballistics evidence in this case. But back to Mr. Bugliosi - of course no one will ever put this subject to rest now - there is too much out there, but this book comes as close to achieving closure as possible and Bugliosi is to be applauded for that. But a word of caution as Vince himself says, this subject is a "bottomless pit".​


                  Or perhaps this one:

                  “I have been reading this book (it is a massive work, more than 1500 pages!) and I must say, it starts to crush my strong belief against the "lone gunman theory": there is a lot of research behind it and the Author's main purpose is to set aside all the conspiracy theories once and for all. It works well, it's very readable but... I do think there is still something to be clarified, not details indeed (just an example: does the Author really think that Jack Ruby - a notorius mobster - acted out of personal indignation?).
                  However the core of the book is strongly persuasive: one of the "must-read" about the Kennedy assassination​“

                  Id suggest that quoting reviews will get us nowhere.

                  I’ll end with this point….I can only think of one currently famous UK legal mind so I’ll use Michael Mansfield.

                  Michael Mansfield K.C. announces that he’s about to release a book that he’s been researching for 20 years. An in depth 1600 page analysis of the Whitechapel Murders with over 2000 pages of sources and endnotes. How many genuine students of the case would say: “nah, I’m not buying that?”

                  I’d state with confidence that everyone would get it (who could afford to buy it of course) And yet neither yourself, George and Fishy (and possibly Cobalt) haven’t bothered. And why is that? Because you knew that he’d concluded that there was no conspiracy and that’s not what any of you want to hear.

                  All that you, George and Fishy have done is to display your bias with pride. No further evidence of your preconceptions is required.



                  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



                    Mark Lane's meticulously researched best-selling book, Rush to Judgment, has stood the test of time and the intense scrutiny of the FBI, the CIA and others who have gone over every sentence. We were told that one attorney who worked for the Warren Commission and who taught at UCLA law school, asked his students to check Lane's thousands of footnotes and they could find no inaccuracies. Despite the flawed assertions Bugliosi makes about Lane's work and cries that he was victorious over Lane in three debates, which was simply not true, he devotes an entire chapter of his book to attacking Lane. Lane is the only author who Bugliosi honors in such fashion in his 1612 pages. Like a prosecutor, Bugliosi is very selective in attempting to use "evidence" or testimony which fits his false claims to discredit Lane. He asks why Lane neglected to mention two witnesses in his book. Lane may not have mentioned hundreds of witnesses because there were thousands of "witnesses" in the case and even Bugliosi couldn't mention every one of them in his massive book. Lane, it was recognized by historians such as Bertrand Russell and Hugh Trevor-Roper proved definitively that there was a conspiracy and that the top FBI sharp-shooters could not duplicate what Oswald was to have done even with a target that was not moving.



                    I suggest you ​find something better to do than waste six months of your life reading Bugliosi.

                    I would also recommend a reading or re-reading of Rush to Judgment.

                    It is different from some other critiques of the Warren Commission Report in that its author views it from the perspective of a defence lawyer, but it does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald could not have been found guilty in a fair trial in which evidence was not suppressed and witnesses neither harassed nor eliminated.

                    Do you mean like Lane’s disgraceful attempt to get Helen Markham to say what he wanted to say.
                    Even Harold Weisberg said that Lane couldn’t be distrusted. Rush To Judgment is toilet paper. We’ve already seen how Lane tried to keep his interview with Markham from the WC. They had to force him to hand it over because he knew how bad it made him look.

                    Weisberg:

                    “I only wish,” speaking about Lane in Mother Jones, that Lane “were content to steal from others, but he has this urge to invent his own stuff.”

                    Mother Jones, which is a decidedly left wing publication called Lane “the left’s leading hearse chaser,” and a “huckster.” Of course gullible conspiracy theorists love him. Just look at how many witnesses have suddenly started remembering things after a chat with the huckster.

                    ​​​​​​​Bugliosi would have torn him to shreds.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Six months.....
                      I’m guessing you’re a slow reader?
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        Totally and utterly sucked in by the WC garbage , what a joke.

                        You'd send a man to the electic chair on trumped up lies and proven evidence that directly contradicts the WC and a bunch of circumstancial evidence against Oswald .

                        Let me apologize right here and now to any living relatives of the Oswald family on be half of us here on casebook for the above reckless an savage remarks .

                        Pathetic.

                        .
                        Another closely reasoned piece of analysis from Fishy of the Bailey. If I was wearing a hat I’d take it off. Are you related to PI?

                        Are you still a Knight/Sickert believer by the way.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Oh let me add also as you forgot.

                          George, Fishy ,p.i jemenges, and cobalt.

                          You know the one you claimed doesn't make silly comments !!

                          Like "Oswald didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit" "
                          ,
                          Nah not silly is he.
                          Genius.
                          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
                            Your just like PI and just like the majority of CT’s. Obsessed with some David Icke view of the world where everyone in power is thoroughly evil.

                            (Herlock Shomes to Cobalt, # 2940)




                            David Icke was barred from entering Australia in 2019, and the Netherlands only a few months ago, on account of his well-publicised anti-Semitic views.

                            They are so well-known that it would be impossible to libel him by describing him as an anti-Semite.

                            He has also been accused of Holocaust denial.

                            His view of the world is so distorted that he has claimed that Combat 18, a neo-Nazi group, the numerals of whose name were derived from Adolf Hitler's initials, is a front for a certain Jewish charitable organisation.

                            He has also claimed that Israel planned the 9/11 atrocities.

                            I do not share David Icke's view of the world.

                            I suggest you withdraw your insinuation that I share David Icke's view of the world.


                            Shut up. Do you really think that everyone on here can’t see through that feeble ploy.

                            And coming from a man who was banned for labelling someone on here as a racist.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                            Comment


                            • I’ll post more on the book I’m reading later and would be interested in any unbiased comments from non-childish contributors (which counts out any of the childish contributors that I’ve encountered this morning.) Jeeeeeez
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                              Comment




                              • If you scroll past Lane’s disgraceful attempt to manipulate Helen Markham you’ll be able to read about his disgraceful attempt to manipulate Aquila Clemons and his deliberately dishonest editing. As I said….a book could be written on Lane’s dodgy tactics.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X