JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.
The discovery of a white jacket is corroborated by the testimony of Officer Thomas Hutson.

Yes, Hutson confirmed the discovery of the jacket. How is this evidence of the WC lying?

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl..._513-nicol.gif

Your source is selectively quoting.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. NICOL. Of course I have not had a chance to examine the weapon. But on the information that you gave me, this was originally manufactured for English ammunition, and has been rechambered for American domestic ammunition, is that correct?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. NICOL. The undersized bullet going through an oversized barrel of course presents some serious identification problems, because it does not go through with the same conformity as a projectile going through the proper-sized barrel, so that it is apt to, you might say, skip and bear more on one surface than on another in subsequent firings, so that the identification is made more complex and it is expected that more dissimilarities occur under those circumstances. However, at the points where it did reproduce at the land edges, as shown in this photograph, I found sufficient lines of identification to lead me to the conclusion that they had both been fired in the same weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it consistent with the markings you found on this bullet that it had been fired in a slightly oversized barrel?
Mr. NICOL. Slight. However, due to the malleability of lead, it does accommodate itself more than a metal-case projectile, and therefore, the evidence of being fired in an oversized barrel is not as pronounced as it would be if it were fired, let's say, a .32-20 fired in a .38 Special, which would be possible, and would give very distinct evidence of the difference in the size of the bullet and the barrel. However, in neither case is an identification completely precluded. What is necessary is that tests are available which have borne on the same surface. If this is true, and if the marks have not been mutilated, then an identification is still possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say the bullet will accommodate itself, you mean it will expand to fill out all or part of the lands and grooves?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. Actually, with the pressure on the base and the inertia of the bullet, it is in a sense shorter and expanded in diameter to accommodate for the larger-sized barrel.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on the other three bullets-- that is, did you definitely--find yourself definitely unable to identify those bullets, or did you reach a "probable" conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not posting for debate anymore but I thought I’d look into the occasional point that has been made on the thread if it’s of interest and make the occasional post. I’ll leave Fiver to combat the twisting of evidence. On this occasion I’d had a look into Patrick’s statement, made as if it was a fact: “Sure I'm going to trust Specter and the WC where every member hated JFKs guts.. Not a chance, its not done yet.”

Although this is a fairly long post with a repetition of lines I haven’t attempted to do fuller biographies for obvious reasons. For a few of the counsel's I’ve just listed their occupation as general details aren’t particularly relevant.


Commissioners.


Earl Warren - A Republican but a Liberal one. He helped a decision to be passed proclaiming segregation in schools to be against the constitution amongst many other rulings, like ones protecting the rights of those suspected of crime. Definitely a progressive. Warren said of Kennedy: “ "no American during my long life ever set his sights higher for a better America or centered his attacks more accurately on the evils and shortcomings of our society than did [Kennedy]”

The head of the Commission both liked and admired Kennedy.

> I can see no evidence of any ‘hatred’ for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Richard Russell - An supporter of segregation and a believer in White Supremacy without doubt, although it appears that he’d often attacked ‘race-baiting’ and people that knew him believed that he bore black people no ill-will and didn’t believe in violence toward them. That said, this doesn’t change the fact of his racist views and no one can excuse them. So he was certainly on the opposite side to Kennedy on Civil Rights. It’s possible to disagree with someone without hating them of course. He initially refused to serve on the Committee because of his low opinion of Earl Warren due to his anti-segregation beliefs.

> I can see no evidence of any ‘hatred’ for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

John Sherman-Cooper - A Republican and so on the other side of the political divide to JFk. After Kennedy was elected though he chose Cooper for secret fact-finding missions to Moscow and Delhi to find out how those two countries saw the administration. He was against any escalation in Vietnam and so was critical of Johnson. In his earlier career he supported a movement to prevented judges stepping in to end strike action by injunction which doesn’t speak of a hardline right-winger. He was even criticised by his own party for not voting with them often enough, he told them that he represented his constituents not them. He was a close friend of Nehru and also maintained a friendship with Kennedy after they had served together on a Labour Committee.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy. It appears that they were friends.

Hale Boggs - A Democrat who voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act. Hardly a dumb follower of the nations institutions as in 1971 on the floor of the house he denounced the FBI and called for Hoover to resign. He claimed that the FBI had him under surveillance. It has even been suggested by conspiracy theorists that it was actually Boggs who persuaded Garrison to re-open his investigation.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Allen Dulles - Was fired from his position at the CIA by JFK.

There appears to be little doubt the Dulles disliked Kennedy. But it’s a long way from ‘disliking’ to covering up a conspiracy to murder the President.

John J. McCloy - A Republican Party supporter. He supported the ending of segregation in the US military after initially being for it. Served as an advisor to 5 Presidents including Kennedy. Doesn’t sound like much of a ‘Kennedy hater.’

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Gerald Ford - A Republican of course. Voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act and was considered a moderate on most issues.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)


Counsels


J. Lee Rankin - A Republican. He also acted to desegregate schools.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Francis W. H. Adams - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Joseph A. Ball - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

David W. Belin - Jewish. Philanthropist. Well respected.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

William Thaddeus Coleman Jnr - A Republican African American. Worked in Civil Rights for the NAACP.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Melvin A. Eisenberg - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Burt W. Griffin - A US attorney.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Leon D. Hubert - New Orleans Lawyer.

>I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Albert E. Jenner Jnr - Lawyer from Chicago

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Wesley J. Liebeler - Law Professor.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Norman Redlich - US Lawyer.

Did work on ensuring prisoners who didn’t have the money to get legal assistance. Worked on the Emergency Civil Liberty Committee. Chairman of the American Jewish Congress. No hardline right-winger here.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

W. David Slawson - Denver Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Arlen Specter - US Lawyer/ Democrat (although he became a Republican in 1965)

Jewish. Recommended to work on the WC by Ford. Voted in favour of Civil Rights. Voted to increase the minimum wage. Supported the ‘pathway to citizenship’ program. Helped introduce legislation on the invasion of people’s privacy by government. Hardly a ‘Kennedy hater.’

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Samuel A. Stern - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Howard P. Willens - Lawyer. RFL appointed him second assistant Attorney General in the criminal division. Worked on the commission investigating Jimmy Hoffa. Democrat. After RFK’s death he voted for the first African American to be nominated for President.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

….


Of all of the Counsel’s and Commissioners we can say for a pretty sure fact that Dulles didn’t like Kennedy because of their past history. Russell was an obvious racist and so might not have liked Kennedy’s due to his views on Civil Rights but can we really say that he actively dislike him enough to cover up his murder? He was friend of Johnson’s and it was Johnson that signed off the Civil Rights act. He didn’t hate Johnson.

It’s the easiest thing to give opinions based on wish-thinking and assumption. The ‘big bad’ Warren Commission has become a cliché that gets parroted far too often. It’s simply conspiracy theorist stars tactic of mudslinging. Say something often enough and people that know no better will come to assume it to be true when it’s very clearly not. We have no actual evidence that I can see of this commission being full of, or even containing, anyone that hated Kennedy so much that they would betray their country and risk their own reputations to deliberately cover up a conspiracy to kill the him.

I know that we mock the idea of patriotism these days but it really did mean something people in those days. This isn’t naïveté on my part. It’s a simple truth. And if any of these people are to be accused of this kind of thing then I think they at least deserve the decency of having some real evidence presented of it and not just the false assumptions of those with an obvious agenda. And no…errors and omissions don’t count. You can find these in any case so how much more would we expect to find in a case this complex? We also have to consider, as commissioners and counsels did, that they came up against the CIA and FBI who will fight tooth and nail to guard their secrets..whether it was for what they believed was the national interests or simply to cover up their own shortcomings. Is it that much of a surprise that these two organisations, who had both had dealings with Oswald (the FBI was watching him of course) wanted to distance themselves from the possibility of these two very damaging questions (and more) “how is it that you knew of this traitor, you knew that he was trying to go back to the Soviet Union, you knew of his background and yet he went on to kill Kennedy with the Secret Service never being told that this man was not just in Dallas but was working along the motorcade route (as it was standard practice to do).” And “If you hadn’t dropped the ball might not the President still be alive today?” Could there have been any greater reason for them to put up the shutters. Nothing to do with a conspiracy.

The trope of the ‘corrupt Warren Commission’ doesn’t become true with repetition. The fact is that we have zero evidence that might lead us to believe that this group of people would have acted as it is alleged. If we took this attitude on any other subject there would be nothing that wasn’t evidence of a conspiracy. The ‘corrupt Warren Commission’ is as hollow a bleat now as it was in 1963.

[c.d.]

I’m not posting for debate anymore...

So glad to hear that. I thought for a moment that just when you thought you had gotten out they managed to pull you back in. But since your post was not for debate....

c.d.

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

#3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:

More selective quoting by your "source".

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not posting for debate anymore...

So glad to hear that. I thought for a moment that just when you thought you had gotten out they managed to pull you back in. But since your post was not for debate....

c.d.

I won’t be responding to any responses that might be made c.d.

[c.d.]

I won’t be responding to any responses that might be made c.d.

Yes, and I have decided to give up drinking beer.

Stay strong in your fight, my friend.

c.d.

[scottnapa]

Hi scottnapa - I thought you did.

''The body of John Kennedy was removed from Dallas before an autopsy was performed. Therefore, no murder happened legally in Texas, because the evidence had been tampered with by removing it from its jurisdiction. No body no crime.'' - your post #2688.

And

''Once the body is removed, there can be no trial in Dallas for the death of the President.'' - your post 3647.

My expectation had Oswald lived is that the case against him would most definitely have gone to trial in Dallas and that the judge could have permitted evidence from all medical professionals as requested by prosecution or defence counsels, albeit with the jury being warned that usual medical and legal requirements for a Dallas autopsy had not been met and thus any medical bar for the prosecution to reach would be high.

e It is probably impossible to be absolutely certain as to what the judge would have done as there almost certainly would have been no precedent for him to follow. I am assuming here that noThere other autopsy of a murder victim was ever held outside Dallas when the murder was committed there.
d]c
That all said, I strongly believe Oswald would have been confronted with a guilty verdict even if the judge had disallowed medical evidence from the prosecution. As particularly set out by Sir Herlock and Fiver, there is already more than ample evidence for a conviction (fingerprint, eyewitness, fraudulent documentation and other circumstantial).

Had Oswald lived to claim that there was a second shooter who actually killed Kennedy (and I doubt that was the case although it looks the best way of seeking to lessen his starring role), it wouldn't really have helped him much as he still would have been guilty of conspiracy to murder and facing the same ultimate penalty.

Regards,, e
OneRound

Thank you for yiur response. Thank you for quoting me to me.
It is a simple or as complicated as one wants.
One, the chain of evidence is broken, it ceases to be evidence. As I say, remember the OJ trial.
WC apologists are used to engaging with everyone who criticizes the mediocre autopsy. and so there is a knee jerk reaction to defend the autopsy.
.
"probably impossible to be absolutely certain as to what the judge would have done"
Your notion of certainly is not true. The confrontation with Dr Rose and the secret service on exiting the hospital, is clea r that Rose thinks this death has to treated like any other murder and the SS demanding that exceptions be made, as this is the President. While
did.
"On November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy. During this time, Earl F. Rose was the medical examiner for Dallas County and he was in hils office when Kennedy was brought into the Parkland Memorial Hospital Emergency Room. Rose immediately went to the ER because this death was a homicide, and medicolegal considerations took priority for the future trial. At this time, the federal government had no criminal jurisdiction over murder, even the murder of the president, so this was a matter of the state, meaning the courts of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction over this matter."
The US government in response to the clusterfudge at the Dallas hospital, passed a law in 1964 to address this issue and make the killing of aPresident a federal crime so that it would have jurisdiction. The reason pass this bill is do solve the issues the caused by the exit of the body and a plethora of other crimes that might be needed in the future. kidnapping, etc. Now the Federal government has jurisdiction. In 1963 it did not. State of Texas
United States Code: Presidential Assassination, Kidnaping, and Assault, 18 U.S.C. § 1751 (Suppl. 2 1964).

https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1964-016018084/

[scottnapa]

The files are released.
On the home front, I have new Kennedy documents.
My housemate saw my jfk pages on the kitchen table and she told me her grandfather in Baton Rouge was an ex-police officer who nvestigated the assassination of Kennedy in Louisiana. He met with Marguerite Oswald, who gave him a picture of Lee Oswald.
It is an interesting emotions touching something historical. (One year in Dallas, the owner of Jack Ruby's pistol handed to me to hold under the table, because he understood emotional it is to hold history. Even if it is regrettable history.)

[scottnapa]

More from Joe Cooper --
The car crash had the family thinking conspiracy. He dies later of a gunshot would to the head.
Interestingly, the family is divided, just are we are on this forum. Half the family is for conspiracy and half the family for lone nut.

I have made efforts in my posts to introduce quotes from books most would not have read,
Robert Oswald's book, the Making of the President 1964, Secrets from the 6th floor, with the hope there would be interesting new things to discuss.

Sadly that is not what is happening. The disrespect shown to each other is tiresome.
I see very little curiosity in the conversations online, it's mostly game of fools vs liars.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and I have decided to give up drinking beer.

Stay strong in your fight, my friend.

c.d.

[A P Tomlinson]

Have you got a source for these alleged eight metteing between the FBI and Jack Ruby?

I can start with the big one...
HSCA Document: F-586, (its round about the page 200 mark in Volume 5) its his PCI record form, that includes the date he was signed up (March 1st 1959) along with the added, "...advice he was not to consider himself an employee of the FBI, and he was not to contact the Dallas Department personally" (the following section is "Arrangements for Payment" where it is noted that he had it explained to him that any money forthcoming was to be considered as taxable income.) That form includes a follow up date of the 11th March.
Following that in the HSCA report are a number of further action memos on criminal activities and instructions to contact "Jack Ruby" "Jack Leon Ruby" and "Jack Leon Ruby, PCI" culminating in the 6 Nov 1959 memo stating that he was essentially a bit of a waste of time and effort, and to cut him loose.

This has been around since the HSCA, the Church Committee dug a lot of this up when it was investigating the general level of skullduggery the FBI and CIA had been up to, and as more and more shady JFK crap came to the surface they expanded the investigation to accommodate it.

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

#4. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:


The Report concluded:
"Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )

There are three civilian witnesses that Oswald pulled a gun on the police.

George Jefferson Applin, Jr. He worked at a service station.
"this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once."

Johnny Calvin Brewer. he was assistant manager at a shoe store.
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

John Gibson. He managed a camera store.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, he had this pistol in his hand.

So where is the lie?

[Fiver]

You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

To believe WC apologists, the witnesses all suffered from color blindness, being unable to tell the difference between white, blue, gray, and tan.

Apparently, they couldn't read either.

They couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a "6.5" "made in Italy".

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a 6.5 Carcano.
* Planted the wrong rifle in the TSBD.
* Gave several police officers the chance to see the wrong rifle.
* Let the police take photos of the wrong rifle.
* Let the police eject a round from the wrong rifle.
* Let the police dust the wrong rifle for prints at the scene.
* Let the police record the serial number for the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let the police scratch "J. C. Day" on the stock of the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let the news take film of the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let multiple newspapers take still photos of the wrong rifle as it was being taken out of the TSBD.
* Managed to switch rifles without anyone noticing.
* Managed to switch the ejected bullet without anyone noticing.

And you think that's more credible than three police officers who glanced at the rifle might have been mistaken?

[Patrick Differ]

First of all I guess I should have clarified who on the WC hated Kennedys guts so for the record it would be Dulles ( the real Power in the CIA ), Hoover ( FBI) and LBJ. The Republicans and Democrats then as now had opposing views and Agendas. Civil Rights was being changed by MLK more than either Party. To think Republicans were fond of Kennedy is naive. The American South was very different back then but Republicans were ultra conservative. Not Liberal like Kennedy.

I would add General Curtis LeMay and the MOB to the list of Kennedy haters. These were powerful forces at work at that time and they ALL benefited significantly from Kennedys murder. The relationship between the CIA and the MOB was disturbing. Oswald was known because of his defection to Russia and work in New Orleans. The Feds knew him and the FBI kept some track of his movements.

Curtis LeMay was the poster boy for the Military Industrial Complex. He was behind the Carpet Bombing of Japan in WW2 and was all for using Nukes against N.Korea in that conflict. After Kennedy was murdered he and LBJ escalated Vietnam into yet another major War. LBJ and LeMays cronies at Halliburton were big winners in the Vietnam War and every War since.

I stand by my distrust of that government and their conclusions based on probabilities at the time. Therefore I fall on the side of " show us everything". I am very skeptical about the Leaders who were behind the WC. Specter only gets attention in my view because of his single bullet theory. A theory that does not appear to match the Zapruder film. If Kennedy showed a reaction at Frame 225 for example, why didn't Connally? It was a high velocity jacketed bullet. Or maybe my eyes are bad.

Will there be any revelations in the 80000 new documents? One I heard today was that if the CIA and FBI knew about Oswald well before the murder. That is confirmed. Did they screw up by not keeping track of Oswald or was he a Patsy. Seems odd that they would lose the fact that Oswald was in the Book Depository and then 30 minutes after the assassination have a full APB on the guy.

What did Oswald say in the Dallas jail? " they knew I lived in the Soviet Union". They who? FBI,CIA?

in truth I would have no interest in the bit players on the WC. I guess their biographies interest some people. Did they all hate Kennedy? I guess that was a poor choice of words. But the men in real Power absolutely did !