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

    Hi Fishy,

    I thought the clown depiction could be taken as offensive, but knowing Herlock I suspected he was just attempting humour. I expect that if you posted this picture with name tags attached of Herlock and other apologists he would take it in the same humorous vein:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Sheep.jpg
Views:	613
Size:	71.6 KB
ID:	803757

    It's just what we Aussies call "taking the Mickey", so lets all have a laugh at ourselves and each other and move on.

    Cheers, George
    It was simply a joke George. I’ve had loads of people posting comic pictures aimed at me. I remember someone posting a picture of a blind man with a white stick because they thought that I was blind to what they thought was obvious.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      Ah Herlock, you never fail to disappoint, my friend. When you can't explain, deflect and ignore.

      I agree with Fishy that the world has moved on since 1963 and such things are no longer of interest. News and TV revolve around "reality" shows, and the Kardashians, and the producers of cacophonies that are labelled as music......Yikes, I am getting old.

      Bugliosi? I am too old to devote time to reading 1600 pages of conjecture and supposition that science has debunked beyond any reasonable doubt. But have you viewed the videos to which I provided links? There is only a few hours involved there, and you wouldn't want people to think that you’re only interested in stuff on the apologist theory side.

      Cheers, George
      No deflection George. The only deflection is that not one single person can give a cogent answer to the bigger questions, or indeed many of the smaller ones.

      The point about the Press is just mind blowing. As if anyone could remotely believe that world wouldn’t be interested in proof that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. I guess that’s why no one watches documentaries on TV and no one watched the movie JFK. Come on George, be serious.

      And on Bugliosi’s. Sorry George you’ve just shown that, like Fishy, you’re only interested in reading books which confirm the opinion that you already hold. No one with a serious interest in the case (and I don’t really have a serious interest - I hadn’t even thought about it until this thread started up again) can not bother to read Bugliosi. I’ve read more conspiracy stuff than non-conspiracy. I just don’t believe in a conspiracy.


      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

        No deflection George. The only deflection is that not one single person can give a cogent answer to the bigger questions, or indeed many of the smaller ones.

        The point about the Press is just mind blowing. As if anyone could remotely believe that world wouldn’t be interested in proof that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. I guess that’s why no one watches documentaries on TV and no one watched the movie JFK. Come on George, be serious.

        And on Bugliosi’s. Sorry George you’ve just shown that, like Fishy, you’re only interested in reading books which confirm the opinion that you already hold. No one with a serious interest in the case (and I don’t really have a serious interest - I hadn’t even thought about it until this thread started up again) can not bother to read Bugliosi. I’ve read more conspiracy stuff than non-conspiracy. I just don’t believe in a conspiracy.
        I think the public has become a little bit saturated over the years by the constant stream of nut case theories, but there has always been a majority believing that the government was not telling them the truth. The movie JFK attracted a lot of attention and the actual mechanics of the assassination has been refined over the years since then by the experiments conducted by the select committees. Refinements such as the HD scans of negatives of the ZF and the synchronisation of the acoustic evidence. As the with-held documents are released we will find out more detail, but we already have the correspondence from the head of the CIA to the head of the Secret Service stating that "the asset" Oswald was trained by the CIA for missions in Russia, that he didn't defect but was sent there on a mission. There are at least two home movies that were confiscated, one of which was towards the grassy knoll. Hopefully they may be returned in the near future.

        In another 25 years you may find yourself more selective about where you expend your time. The logistics of the assassination have been put beyond any reasonable doubt by science. The reason why may or may not be clarified by the release of documents. The demands on my time make me reluctant to devote the many long hours required to read a treatise which will be long on speculation, surmise and supposition, and short on scientific evaluation.
        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

          I think the public has become a little bit saturated over the years by the constant stream of nut case theories, but there has always been a majority believing that the government was not telling them the truth. The movie JFK attracted a lot of attention and the actual mechanics of the assassination has been refined over the years since then by the experiments conducted by the select committees. Refinements such as the HD scans of negatives of the ZF and the synchronisation of the acoustic evidence. As the with-held documents are released we will find out more detail, but we already have the correspondence from the head of the CIA to the head of the Secret Service stating that "the asset" Oswald was trained by the CIA for missions in Russia, that he didn't defect but was sent there on a mission. There are at least two home movies that were confiscated, one of which was towards the grassy knoll. Hopefully they may be returned in the near future.

          In another 25 years you may find yourself more selective about where you expend your time. The logistics of the assassination have been put beyond any reasonable doubt by science. The reason why may or may not be clarified by the release of documents. The demands on my time make me reluctant to devote the many long hours required to read a treatise which will be long on speculation, surmise and supposition, and short on scientific evaluation.
          As far as the ‘science’ is concerned George, if it hasn’t been trumpeted all over the news, which it hasn’t, then it must be because it’s simply not as conclusive as you believe.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

          Comment


          • Just from searching online I can see no mention anywhere of Oswald being a CIA operative. Could someone post a link to this info please as it must be on the net somewhere.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • Some researchers have suggested that Oswald was an active agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, pointing to the fact that Oswald attempted to defect to Russia but was nonetheless able to return without difficulty (even receiving a repatriation loan from the State Department[104][105]) as evidence of such. Oswald's mother, Marguerite, often insisted that her son was recruited by an agency of the U.S. Government and sent to Russia.[99] New Orleans District Attorney (and later judge) Jim Garrison, who in 1967 brought Clay Shaw to trial for the assassination of President Kennedy also held the opinion that Oswald was most likely a CIA agent who had been drawn into the plot to be used as a scapegoat, even going as far as to say that Oswald "genuinely was probably a hero".[106] Senator Richard Schweiker, a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence remarked that "everywhere you look with [Oswald], there're fingerprints of intelligence".[107] Schweiker also told author David Talbot that Oswald "was the product of a fake defector program run by the CIA."[108] Richard Sprague, interim staff director and chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, stated that if he "had to do it over again", he would have investigated the Kennedy assassination by probing Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.[109]

              In 1978, James Wilcott, a former CIA finance officer, testified before the HSCA[b] that shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy he was advised by fellow employees at a CIA post abroad that Oswald was a CIA agent who had received financial disbursements under an assigned cryptonym.[110] Wilcott was unable to identify the specific case officer who had initially informed him of Oswald's agency relationship, nor was he able to recall the name of the cryptonym, but he named several employees of the post abroad with whom he believed he had subsequently discussed the allegations.[110] Later that year Wilcott and his wife, Elsie (also a former employee of the CIA), repeated those claims in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle.[111] The HSCA investigated Wilcott's claims- including interviews with the chief and deputy chief of station, as well as officers in finance, registry, the Soviet Branch and counterintelligence - and concluded in their 1979 report they were "not worthy of belief".[110]
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • Ok, I think that I’m going to leave this discussion to others. As I’ve said previously, I’m really not anywhere near as interested in JFK stuff as I used to be but I’ll exit by making 3 points that I find surprising to put it mildly.

                One is the frankly bizarre suggestion that the world’s media wouldn’t be at all interested in mentioning the alleged proof that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Even as I type it I still find it unbelievable that this claim has been made. It would be everywhere but it’s not. Is it?

                And secondly, despite the fact that i have been constantly told that I should read the latest book or watch the latest video in order to gain a clearer picture, neither George or Fishy have taken the time or effort to read Bugliosi’s 1600 page analysis of the case (including something like 2000 pages of endnotes and sources.) And why? Because these monumental piece of work is just speculation, surmise and supposition and short on scientific explanation according to someone that hasn’t bothered to read it! If you’re going to ‘review’ something you should at least make the effort to read it first I’d have though? Dismissed just like that….on a preconception. Simply because it doesn’t say what some people want it to say. And for the record, there is a huge amount of scientific evaluation in there.

                If George or Fishy had asked me what I’d seen and read on the case and I’d said “well I’ve read Posner’s Case Closed, Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History and I’d seen the video of the London Mock Trial (which had many of the original witnesses and the jury found Oswald guilty) then I would have been accused of being biased (and rightly so) But it appears to be perfectly acceptable to read conspiracy theory books alone. Does that imply an unbiased approach or the wish just to read works that appear to confirm an already formed opinion?

                Ive read something like 43 or 44 conspiracy based books and no more than 2 or 3 that go for Oswald Alone, whereas George and Fishy appear to read only conspiracy books. Which is the fairer approach? Yet I still get told to read more conspiracy books.

                ​​​​​​……

                So we have Oswald seen by 2 people with no reason lie putting a bulky passage on the back seat of the car then dashing with it into the Depository. After the assassination he’s seen by Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, a bus driver, a taxi driver, his landlady and the police officers who arrested him and he had no package. Packaging of the same type was found on the 6th floor with Oswald’s prints on it. The rifle was purchased by an Alex Hidell but in Oswald’s handwriting and in his wallet he has a library card for Alex Hidell. His prints are on the weapon.

                Unavoidable conclusion - that at the very least Oswald took the rifle into work.

                Did he fire it? A paraffin test said that he’d fired a gun. At 11.55 he told a co-worker that he was staying on the 6th floor. On a clipboard was his days worksheet with 3 orders which it was his job to complete. It hadn’t been filled in. So from the time that he’d arrived at work to the time that he left the building he hadn’t done a stroke of work. I wonder what he was doing?

                Then this innocent man tries to pretend that he was the only man in Dallas who was unaware of the Presidents visit. He also provably lied about having lunch in the first floor lunchroom with Jarman.

                Then this innocent man scarpered, straight past his bus stop, got on the wrong bus, jumped off into a taxi then got dropped 4 blocks from his rooming house but walked back.

                Then this innocent man dashes inside, changes his trousers, puts on a jacket and then, as all innocent men do, he picks up his revolver.

                Then this innocent man walks past the scene of the murder of a police officer where, unluckily for him the real murderer was his double and he’s ID’d by 10 people.

                Then when he’s arrested this innocent man assaults a police officer and pulls his gun.

                ​​​​​​…….

                Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course but it appears that if your not in the conspiracy club then you’re beyond the pale in these days of David Icke and Alex Jones and Qanon. That’s life. I’m happy to look at the obvious above and come to the obvious conclusion.

                Lee Harvey Oswald was as guilty as f**k and escaped justice by being killed by an unbalanced looney like Ruby.

                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-10-2023, 05:38 PM.
                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
                  Ok, I think that I’m going to leave this discussion to others. As I’ve said previously, I’m really not anywhere near as interested in JFK stuff as I used to be but I’ll exit by making 3 points that I find surprising to put it mildly.

                  One is the frankly bizarre suggestion that the world’s media wouldn’t be at all interested in mentioning the alleged proof that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Even as I type it I still find it unbelievable that this claim has been made. It would be everywhere but it’s not. Is it?

                  And secondly, despite the fact that i have been constantly told that I should read the latest book or watch the latest video in order to gain a clearer picture, neither George or Fishy have taken the time or effort to read Bugliosi’s 1600 page analysis of the case (including something like 2000 pages of endnotes and sources.) And why? Because these monumental piece of work is just speculation, surmise and supposition and short on scientific explanation according to someone that hasn’t bothered to read it! If you’re going to ‘review’ something you should at least make the effort to read it first I’d have though? Dismissed just like that….on a preconception. Simply because it doesn’t say what some people want it to say. And for the record, there is a huge amount of scientific evaluation in there.

                  If George or Fishy had asked me what I’d seen and read on the case and I’d said “well I’ve read Posner’s Case Closed, Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History and I’d seen the video of the London Mock Trial (which had many of the original witnesses and the jury found Oswald guilty) then I would have been accused of being biased (and rightly so) But it appears to be perfectly acceptable to read conspiracy theory books alone. Does that imply an unbiased approach or the wish just to read works that appear to confirm an already formed opinion?

                  Ive read something like 43 or 44 conspiracy based books and no more than 2 or 3 that go for Oswald Alone, whereas George and Fishy appear to read only conspiracy books. Which is the fairer approach? Yet I still get told to read more conspiracy books.

                  ​​​​​​……

                  So we have Oswald seen by 2 people with no reason lie putting a bulky passage on the back seat of the car then dashing with it into the Depository. After the assassination he’s seen by Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, a bus driver, a taxi driver, his landlady and the police officers who arrested him and he had no package. Packaging of the same type was found on the 6th floor with Oswald’s prints on it. The rifle was purchased by an Alex Hidell but in Oswald’s handwriting and in his wallet he has a library card for Alex Hidell. His prints are on the weapon.

                  Unavoidable conclusion - that at the very least Oswald took the rifle into work.

                  Did he fire it? A paraffin test said that he’d fired a gun. At 11.55 he told a co-worker that he was staying on the 6th floor. On a clipboard was his days worksheet with 3 orders which it was his job to complete. It hadn’t been filled in. So from the time that he’d arrived at work to the time that he left the building he hadn’t done a stroke of work. I wonder what he was doing?

                  Then this innocent man tries to pretend that he was the only man in Dallas who was unaware of the Presidents visit. He also provably lied about having lunch in the first floor lunchroom with Jarman.

                  Then this innocent man scarpered, straight past his bus stop, got on the wrong bus, jumped off into a taxi then got dropped 4 blocks from his rooming house but walked back.

                  Then this innocent man dashes inside, changes his trousers, puts on a jacket and then, as all innocent men do, he picks up his revolver.

                  Then this innocent man walks past the scene of the murder of a police officer where, unluckily for him the real murderer was his double and he’s ID’d by 10 people.

                  Then when he’s arrested this innocent man assaults a police officer and pulls his gun.

                  ​​​​​​…….

                  Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course but it appears that if your not in the conspiracy club then you’re beyond the pale in these days of David Icke and Alex Jones and Qanon. That’s life. I’m happy to look at the obvious above and come to the obvious conclusion.

                  Lee Harvey Oswald was as guilty as f**k and escaped justice by being killed by an unbalanced looney like Ruby.

                  Hi herlock
                  i disagree about oswald escaping justice. that loser got exactly what he deserved!!!

                  Comment


                  • i disagree about oswald escaping justice. that loser got exactly what he deserved!!!

                    It might have been better to have a trial first to prove his guilt.

                    The word ‘loser’ is a very American expression often casually flung at Oswald but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. He had been employed in a series of menial jobs but by the age of 24 had led a richer life than most. He had served his country out in Japan and then spent a couple of years living inside the USSR. Given the ease with which he defected and later returned it is highly likely he had been selected by the security services which points to some qualities in his character. The Soviets judged him as a fake but cool under scrutiny, the very same conclusion the Dallas police reached following his arrest.

                    He had learned Russian, a difficult language I can attest, to some level and had a young wife and two children. He followed the political scene and had even been interviewed on local television for his stance on Cuba. Through his wife, Oswald was mixing in fairly elevated company and although short on money this ‘loser’ earning around $2,500 a year had about $3,000 worth of photographic equipment. How many who call Oswald a ‘loser’ have done more than that by the age of 24?

                    Comment


                    • Any trial would have been open and shut. They did a mock trial of course and he was found guilty. You won’t be surprised to hear that I agree with what Bugliosi said in an interview, something like - you could take the evidence against Oswald and throw 75% of it out of the window and you would still have enough to convict him in any court of law.

                      I genuinely think that if someone at the time had got someone like Oswald to do what Oswald did but he was also told “I want you to make yourself look as suspicious and guilty as possible,” they would have had a hard job making themselves look as guilty as Oswald did. When we go through what he did from the day before to his arrest I can’t for the life of me see how anyone can conclude that these were the actions of an innocent man. He’s virtually textbook ‘guilty man.’
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                      Comment


                      • All based on the Warren commission evidence, of course he would have been found guilty . The defense would have crushed that made up nonsense LBJ had instructed with real scientific and real experimental evidence that shows he was innocent . As George has purposed on this thread many time .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Camus View Post
                          In regards to Herlock's assertion that the grassy knoll is a high risk place for a sniper, I agree, but they had some pretty stupendous luck, the police never took names or license plate numbers of any of the cars parked there and never searched any of them either.
                          The grassy knoll is one of the worst possible places for a shooter to position themself. The target would have been moving from left to right across the field of vision and frequently blocked by street signs or the heads of members of the crowd.

                          "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

                            As far as the ‘science’ is concerned George, if it hasn’t been trumpeted all over the news, which it hasn’t, then it must be because it’s simply not as conclusive as you believe.
                            Really?? Truth is to be determined by the press?
                            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 DJA View Post
                              If anyone has not watched Oliver Stone's 1991 epic "JFK",it is currently on Disney+.

                              Well worth the three hours,despite a few errors.
                              A few errors? Oliver Stone's JFK makes 300 look like a documentary.

                              One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone's JFK

                              Ways in which Stone tampered with the historical record.​

                              "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 Fiver View Post

                                The grassy knoll is one of the worst possible places for a shooter to position themself. The target would have been moving from left to right across the field of vision and frequently blocked by street signs or the heads of members of the crowd.
                                actually the grassy knoll is not bad at all, and the closer you get to being on the rr bridge, and they are very close, the better shot you have. its on a hill/ overpass... your well above bystanders heads. the target is coming almost straight at you unimpeded by anything. and its an easy escape and easily accessible. the kill shot looks like thats exactly where it comes from.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X