JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is another provably false statement by your source.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.



Frazier's testimony is a lot more vague than your source claims, but it is very firm that Oswald did not bring a lunch that day.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

This is so simple but it’s been complicated by conspiracy theorists as usual.

Oswald went to the Paine’s a day earlier - fact.
The tight-fisted Oswald left pretty much every penny that he owned - fact.
Oswald left his wedding ring - fact.

Now, these three fact alone (and they are facts) at the very, very least show that something highly unusual and highly significant/serious was going on. This doesn’t speak of an innocent man. It speaks, at the very minimum, of someone ‘up to something serious.’

Oswald carries a large package to work - fact.

We can quibble all day about the size but Frazier admitted that he paid little attention to it apart from to note that it’s size stood out.

Oswald told him that they were curtain rods - fact.

We know…we don’t guess…we know that these weren’t curtain rods. Oswald didn’t change his plans, leave all of his money and his wedding ring because of his part in a curtain rods smuggling operation.

We don’t need pointless nitpicking. All that we need is to listen to what this ordinary bloke Frazier tells us at the time.

And then, surprise, surprise, on the very floor that Oswald was working what is found …a rifle.

And what happened to the rifle that we know for a fact…because the witnesses at the time told us….was in the Paine’s garage?

It disappeared.

Come on!!

This isn’t hard. Ask yourselves why a conspiracy would bother with all of this? A lying Marina, a lying Ruth Paine, a lying Buell Frazier.

There is no mystery. Oswald took his rifle to work and we all know why.

[FISHY1118]

I commented about Fishy’s cut and pasting because it renders discussion impossible George. When Fiver cut and pasted he was doing it in response to another post to show what was actually said. Even then his posts weren’t as long as the ones pasted by Fishy. This isn’t me trying to tell another poster what to post. It’s purely about this being a discussion forum. A discussion is impossible if absolutely huge chunks are cut and pasted and presented as proof of something. To respond in detail to the points made would take hours for anyone.

What if I had Bugliosi’s book on Kindle for example and just cut and pasted one of the shorter chapters with an “more evidence of guilt” comment, just as Fishy did?There would be no way that you or Fishy or Cobalt or Patrick or anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to such a detailed chunk. Do you think it right that the thread should descend into a “let’s see who can cut and pasted one the most words competition? Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever when I’m just trying to prevent the thread turning into a pointless cut and paste exercise?

I just did a long post but it wasn’t cut and pasted. It was the result of reading. But I accept that it was too long to allow for any detailed response as it would take someone considerable time to do it.

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post. I was pretty clear in what I meant George. Some of the things that we hear and read in this case is infantile and childish and I’ve listed them before ‘man in the drain’ ‘umbrella man’ ‘Garrison’s army of assassins’ ‘Beverly Oliver’s lies.’ When I see people still defending these aspects of the case can you not understand why it’s so disheartening? Can anyone be less believable than Ricky White and yet Fishy gloatingly proclaims him as part of the solution to the case.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

If I choose to cut and paste herlock its because that is information I've sourced about the case that is relevant to the current discussion , where the problem ? If its to long for you the make yourself a coffee .

[FISHY1118]

None of those statements prove that the autopsy photo was fake.

Of course they do . But well done for going against the medical expert doctors at parkland hospital who saw the back of jfks head the day he was shot. .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course you are , because it's was a Mauser they took from the TSBD .

What you call fake and forgery are indeed TRUTH and Facts.

Your everybody's lying, were idiots, were mistaken ,were non existant ridiculous argument has been battered to death, and were sick to death of it also.

You haven’t won a single point Fishy. Not one.

To be honest…you haven’t actually made any points of your own bat. You’ve just posted what conspiracy theorists have written online. But, as you’ve admitted in the past, you’ve only ever read conspiracy theorist work so you can’t be blamed for only seeing what you want to see; it’s simply confirmation bias. If you only read books telling you x you’re never going to listen when someone suggests y.

Nothing can be done about that of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I choose to cut and paste herlock its because that is information I've sourced about the case that is relevant to the current discussion , where the problem ? If its to long for you the make yourself a coffee .

What would the thread be like if we all did that Fishy? This is a forum for discussion. It’s impossible to read, assess and discuss 50 points at a time which is what we are getting.

[GBinOz]

Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever
I don't consider you to be the bad guy my friend. However I sometimes have difficulty in resisting what is known in Australia as "taking the mickey".

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post.
I wasn't referring to your post when I used the word deceptive.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.
Your posts don't annoy me Herlock. But if I disagree I'll say so, which seems to annoy you. You have very strong viewpoints and, if you will forgive the suggestion, somewhat of a short fuse when it comes to theories that you have previously considered to be dismissed.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

I think you have hit the nail on the head in that final paragraph.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course they do . But well done for going against the medical expert doctors at parkland hospital who saw the back of jfks head the day he was shot. .

And the autopsy pathologists who disagreed?

And the HSCA pathologists who confirmed the WC.

And those used in other inquiries.

I can’t recall exactly but I believe, at the last count, it was 17 pathologists who all confirmed the results. No court in the world would dismiss that many experts.

What is likelier (even though I know what you’re committed to saying)

a - some of the doctors at Parkland - who were almost entirely juniors, who were trying to save the President’s life, who weren’t assessing wounds and weren’t qualified to do so anyway, who were young human beings in a traumatic situation, who commented on a wound to the back of Kennedy’s head which they couldn’t have seen because his head was on the table, who saw an area toward the rear of the head all matted with blood and hat and gore - were simply and honestly mistaken. Bugliosi asked Dr. Carrico, who was there, if it was possibly that they could have been mistaken and he said “absolutely.” So why do you say something can’t be possible when I guy who was actually there said that it was possible?

b - that three pathologists lied requiring faked x-rays in the hope that no one ever gave away their secret. And that one of those pathologists, completely of his own accord, called in a third pathologists to make up for the shortfall in knowledge of gunshot wounds.

You will undoubtedly say b. But a is clearly the reasonable position.

[FISHY1118]

What would the thread be like if we all did that Fishy? This is a forum for discussion. It’s impossible to read, assess and discuss 50 points at a time which is what we are getting.

I just can't believe for the life of me that today 62 years later , people such as yourself still believe Oswald fired 3 shots from the tsbd and killed the President ,acting totally alone .

With everything we now know ,all the different eyewitness, medical experts ,sworn testimony, etc,etc that Completely Contradicts the warren commission findings .

Never in my whole 60 on this planet , having had an interest in may crimes in all history , having studied the jfk assassination since I was 15, have I ever ever seen such a more deliberate case of a complete cover up lack of interest of the authorities of the day to find out the truth .


So you'll forgive me Herlock ,but if but if it takes discussing 50 points at the same time in the hope of doing so ,then so be it .

[FISHY1118]

And the autopsy pathologists who disagreed?

And the HSCA pathologists who confirmed the WC.

And those used in other inquiries.

I can’t recall exactly but I believe, at the last count, it was 17 pathologists who all confirmed the results. No court in the world would dismiss that many experts.

What is likelier (even though I know what you’re committed to saying)

a - some of the doctors at Parkland - who were almost entirely juniors, who were trying to save the President’s life, who weren’t assessing wounds and weren’t qualified to do so anyway, who were young human beings in a traumatic situation, who commented on a wound to the back of Kennedy’s head which they couldn’t have seen because his head was on the table, who saw an area toward the rear of the head all matted with blood and hat and gore - were simply and honestly mistaken. Bugliosi asked Dr. Carrico, who was there, if it was possibly that they could have been mistaken and he said “absolutely.” So why do you say something can’t be possible when I guy who was actually there said that it was possible?

b - that three pathologists lied requiring faked x-rays in the hope that no one ever gave away their secret. And that one of those pathologists, completely of his own accord, called in a third pathologists to make up for the shortfall in knowledge of gunshot wounds.

You will undoubtedly say b. But a is clearly the reasonable position.

Your missing the point

I'm not talking about autopsy pathologists who all agree with the fake findings!! I'm talking about the Medical experts who all saw the back of jfk head at 12.35 on the 22n Nov 1963 .

[FISHY1118]

You haven’t won a single point Fishy. Not one.

To be honest…you haven’t actually made any points of your own bat. You’ve just posted what conspiracy theorists have written online. But, as you’ve admitted in the past, you’ve only ever read conspiracy theorist work so you can’t be blamed for only seeing what you want to see; it’s simply confirmation bias. If you only read books telling you x you’re never going to listen when someone suggests y.

Nothing can be done about that of course.

Your totally wrong of course , you said that once before and I pointed out the 3500 post that I was a part of for many of them , you were silent .

You use that argument along side were all just a bunch of "conspiracy theorist", but its pointless and tiresome Herlock .

I've said it before, the Warren Commission is the "Conspiracy " and those that support such nonsense that cast nasty rhetoric and insults on others, they do to themselves without knowing.

[FISHY1118]

"I'm just a Patsy"

.Lee Harvey Oswald .

But hey, I acted totally on my own when I shot and killed the President of the U.S

[Patrick Differ]

Arlen Spector created the magic bullet theory to fit the crime. 7 entrances and exits, a back brace, 7 layers of clothing and pulverizing of rib bone and wrist to come out virtually pristine.

And then the bullet somehow ends up on Connallys gurney. Yet the Secret Service Agent who claims he found it in front of Kennedys foot area in the Limo is clearly lying.

The same Arlen Specter involved in selling guns to the Iranians and using the profit to try and overthrow the government of Nicaragua and ....hey...it's ok to lie to the American people. But they usually get caught.

Specter has no credibility with the American public. The magic bullet is the link needed to say it was Oswald.

There is doubt.

[scottnapa]

The flaws of denial in JFK research are very evident in the need to dismantle conspiracy rumors of body pre-autopsy alteration, proposed by David Lifton, etc.

No effort is made to explain the legal circumstances.

No effort is made to understand context and outcomes related to what happened.




Example #1 DVP:

“Taking JFK's body out of Dallas and back to Washington wasn't the

slightest bit sinister. Nor was it really even very surprising under

the circumstances.

Plus: It was really Jacqueline Kennedy who was the primary reason for the Secret Service bulldozing JFK's casket out of Parkland Hospital.

(No) …”plot” to steal the President's body and fly it to some

kind of Conspiracy BatCave at Walter Reed in order to have covert

head-altering surgery performed.)

Nothing sinister there whatsoever. And whether or not it was technically illegal and against Texas law is not a major point at all. The main question to ask regarding the removal of the President's body on 11/22/63 is this one: WAS PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BODY TAKEN OUT OF DALLAS AS PART

OF A CONSPIRACY AND/OR COVER-UP?

And the obvious answer to that question is: No.

Or do some conspiracy theorists want to accuse Kenneth O'Donnell,

Lawrence O'Brien, the Secret Service, and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy of being part of a plot and/or cover-up?”




Notice the False Dichotomy Fallacy presented with with a splash of appeal to pity and topped with straw-man fallacy cherry;

No one accuses Jackie Kennedy of anything. Why bring it up?

The legal custody and removal of the body has short term issues related to Jack Ruby. and long term issues related to any definition of legal evidence.

Once the body is removed, there can be no trial in Dallas for the death of the President. Now the police and citizens of Dallas think a communist has killed the President and he’s going to get away with it

Robert Oswald sat in a Adolphus Hotel barber chair for a shave on the 23^rd and the barber said Oswald should be exterminated. Many phone threats to Oswald’s family. As for Ruby, his lawyer is initially felt that he would get off if they suggested that Ruby had killed Oswald because Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy, and the lawyer knew everyone in Dallas would feel very strongly about communism. I imagine the Dallas Police Department was sympathetic to the John Birth Society. The fact that Marina Oswald was from Russia is going significant enough to have people in Dallas think is a conspiracy.

In terms of the law violated, it's important to realize that the police are very well aware that Oswald is not able to be prosecuted for killing the President. Leading to a idea that a communist is going to get away with murder, is just a miscarriage of justice that should be addressed with violence. One can see how easily a Dallas policeman would allow Ruby into the basement based on the politics of anti-communism.

This is a time in America when you didn't hear the word communist without having the word conspiracy after it. Lee Harvey Oswald is the first and only non-conspiring communist in American political history..

Ruby’s lawyer felt Jack was very persuadable.

Given the rise in threats against Oswald, it is surprising that the security was insufficient, and Oswald was killed. There may be a relationship between Oswald and Ruby or maybe not.

There is no doubt the DPD conspired to let Ruby Ruby conspires with the police is a given.

You do not need hundreds of Dallas police man to achieve this.

It takes only one man to let Ruby into the basement.

This illustrates the innate flaw of the False Dichotomy Fallacy.

It is not necessary to corrupt a police department or the FBI or the Secret Service The conspiracy need not involve a cast of thousands. The conspiracy need only have a switch man as you have a railroad station. Switching the investigation train onto the track that leads away from the truth. An example of this is the White House command center who told LBJ there was no conspiracy on Nov 22^nd at approximately 3:00 p.m.

[A P Tomlinson]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

But there isn't any evidence that he did and no evidence he did so alone, in fact most evidence suggests a second shooter. That's certainly what the CIA analysis said, anyway, but the commission was under instruction from Johnson to find no evidence of either a domestic or foreign conspiracy.

You ask for "something new" but that information has been coming out for over 30 years, yet anyone who believed the Warren report then, still believes it now and treats the thousands of official documents that have been released as "Conspiracy Nut" propaganda.
Let's start with a simple piece of bullshit that got exposed... Hoover stated for the record that Ruby had never been a ""paid informant" for the FBI. The truth was that in the EIGHT covert meetings the FBI held with Ruby, he provided NO actionable evidence and therefore was never Paid for information.
The Bullet that was "identified" as CE399, was in two places at once according to FBI and Secret Service records... while it was being handed over in the Whitehouse to the FBI, it was already being processed at the FBI. The bullet shown to the men at Parkland who found the bullet was never identified by them as such. A report that never made it to the Warren report showed that senior FBI agent Bardwell Odum had shown the bullet to both Tomlinson (the orderly who found it) and O.P Wright (Personel director who Tomlinson gave it to, and who gave it to the secret Service) said that the bullet they were shown didn't look like the bullet they fund, and that it wasn't a jacketed military round and more like a pointed hunting round. When questioned by the ARRB, Odum said he had never even seen that bullet, let alone taken it to Parkland for examination. No documents detailing the events that bare his name, bare his signature...

Secret Service agent Elmer Moore when questioned by the ARRB said he regretted having to strongarm the Parkland staff into saying that the neck wound was a wound of exit, and that Chief Rowley had forced him to.

But as to did he do it.
Let's ignore that paraffin wax evidence used to "prove" he fired a gun that day also showed that he hadn't fired a rifle. And lets forget that historically, being thrown in the bag of a police car is one of the main ways false positives are created in nitrate and gunpowder evidence being on an innocent persons hands.

Even Warren Commission members doubted their own story.
Richard Russell tried to voice his concerns at the final meeting of the Commission with concerns that they weren't addressing. He called Johnson to raise the point that he didn't believe Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, and Johnson agreed with him. He went on to become the first. and loudest, member of the commission to criticise its findings and said that he believed there was a conspiracy, but that the FBI were not interested in investigating any further than Oswald, and were not forthcoming with any evidence that might point even tangentially away from their initial findings in November 1963 that "he did it and he did it alone" and that they were more interested in protecting their own public profile than finding the truth.
But "Conspiracy nuts" eh...

Junior counsel Wesley Liebeler sent a raft of concerns in the detailing of both Oswalds ability to do the shooting as presented in the report as well as its inability to put him in the window at the time of the shooting, He explained any fingerprint or fiber evidence only showed that he had touched the rifle at some point, not that he had fired it and certainly nothing to show he had fired it that day. He pointed out that no one saw the rifle in the Paine's garage, only that there had been a blanket that had at some point held the rifle.
He pointed out that the argument that his room HAD curtains rods did not take into account that Oswald said they were for a new apartment, and was looking to move himself and his family into a new apartment.
He pointed out that if they were to believe Frazier about the existence of the package and the way Oswald carried it, they should not discount his repeated statement abut the size of the package.
My favourite line from his memos is this "...the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination,"
He tries to get them to address the matter of why Victoria Adams did not see Oswald on the staircase... for some reason the commission requested her filed statements and tape of her evidence be returned to the Commission for "distruction" (It seems that he filing department were either unhappy with this or weren't on the same page, because they replaced the file with the Warren Commissions written request to destroy it... oops) so the report never provided her testimony and based their appraisal of her testimony on a story they created from whole cloth.
But his boldest comment, that tells us everything we need to know about the commissions actual business and purpose was... after tearing holes in the evidence used to support Oswald's ability to do the shooting... this;
"The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so."

Nothing like starting from the assumed presumption of guilt...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just can't believe for the life of me that today 62 years later , people such as yourself still believe Oswald fired 3 shots from the tsbd and killed the President ,acting totally alone .

With everything we now know ,all the different eyewitness, medical experts ,sworn testimony, etc,etc that Completely Contradicts the warren commission findings .

Never in my whole 60 on this planet , having had an interest in may crimes in all history , having studied the jfk assassination since I was 15, have I ever ever seen such a more deliberate case of a complete cover up lack of interest of the authorities of the day to find out the truth .


So you'll forgive me Herlock ,but if but if it takes discussing 50 points at the same time in the hope of doing so ,then so be it .

I believe it because that’s what the evidence tells me.

The problem is that a conspiracy of that ludicrous complexity couldn’t have happened.

Just because you say… “have I ever seen a more deliberate case of complete cover up,’ it means nothing because it’s just a reflection on your own poor judgment. I could equally, and with more credibility, say “I don’t know why you, with whatever job you had or background that you have, think that you are in a better position than Vincent Bugliosi (Deputy DA for LA from ‘64 to ‘72 where he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, a lifelong Democrat [so no right-wing Kennedy hater] he is on record as initially believing that RFK was killed as a result of conspiracy, he also wrote two books seriously criticising the government so he was no apologist)

He spent 20 years researching the case (any idea that someone would spend 20 years to produce something dishonest is not worthy of consideration) He then produced a 1600 page book with a cd-rom of at least that many pages again. The most in-depth analysis of a true crime in the history of true crime by an absolute mile. It was massive news when it finally came out and yet you, and others, couldn’t be bothered to get it. Why? Because your mind is entirely closed. Your opinion has been formed by liars like Mark Lane, like Jim Garrison (a criminal) like Oliver Stone, like Robert Groden, like Beverly Oliver, like Ricky White, like Ed Hoffman and many many others. You have simply listened to those already aboard the bandwagon. Most of whom make their living, at least partially from this case.

I, on the other hand Fishy, read first a straight run through of the case. I then read around 40 conspiracy based books before actually considering the possibility of a lone gunman. Only then did I read Posner and a couple of others. Bugliosi put the final nails in the coffin of this childish (yes I’ll use that word again because it fits) idea of a huge conspiracy.

Oswald was the lone assassin. If you can’t see it then you are biased. It’s as simple as that.

PS…after virtually every post of yours Fiver has ripped it apart but you never comment or discuss do you. You simply move on. Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions to defend your points Fishy? Your points have been thoroughly rebutted.