JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

The above is signature method tactics for the WC, Bugliosi, and their apologists[/I].” Or even when you posted this about me “ Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.”

Fishy didn't post that first comment, I did. The second comment wasn't directed at you, but at the cut and paster who labels every post he doesn't agree with as deceptive or lying, and posts irrelevant documents to try to prove a point that isn't there.

[Fiver]

In total, 3 FBI agents fired 27 rounds from the CE 139 rifle and not one round hit where they were aiming at.

Oswald wasn't aiming at bullseye, he was aiming at a whole man.

The results of these tests proved that the rifle was NOT accurate and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified that it was.

The results of the tests proved the rifle was accurate.

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

When multiple shots are interlocking, even at a short range, that is an extremely accurate rifle.

The distance from the aiming point shows that the scope was not well sighted.

Mr. EISENBERG - How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER - They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

We don't know when that obvious damage to the scope occurred. If it was before Oswald took it to the TSBD, then he could have adjusted by aiming slightly low and to the left. If it occurred in transit to the TSBD, Oswald would have just used the iron sights. He had more than enough training to do either. Or the scope could have been damaged by being dropped into the hiding place just after the shooting, in which case that damage would have no effect on accuracy, since it occurred after the shooting.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that Oswald completely missed noticing the damage to his scope and failed to realize that his misaligned scope meant he was firing high and slightly to the right. He would have been trained to aim for the center of mass, which meant a rifle firing high and slightly to the right would have hit JFK in the neck or head instead of the upper back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

George - Conspiracy Theorist - A term used to discredit those who see through the Bullsh*t.

Herlock - The term means someone who believes in a conspiracy which, as far as I can see, describes yourself, Fishy, Patrick and Cobalt exactly. So I can’t see why you object to it?

You appear to have no issue though with people being called ‘Warren Commission apologists’ or when comments like “WHO RAN THE PHONEY WARREN COMMISSION RIFLE TEST ?” or “Bogus Warren commission conspiracy” are made. Why do you consider this type of thing acceptable George. After all, it’s simply an opinion as the WC cannot be proven dishonest, whereas calling a conspiracy theorist a conspiracy theorist is simply a statement of fact.


George - I am not used to being labelled as "infantile' and "baseless".

Herlock - I made a general comment. In a previous I made it clear that I don’t always lump all conspiracy theorists into the same class but I surely can’t be expected to do this every time the phrase is used? Perhaps we should stop using the phrase but do you think that others will stop labelling people who don’t think the WC corrupt as apologists?

I would also have to point out that you failed to stand up and complain when Fishy described non-conspiracy believers in this way “But as they say "you can't put brains in monuments" or “The Lone Nutters can't have it both ways.” Or even when he said “Your not much of a detective herlock.” Or this “The above is signature method tactics for the WC, Bugliosi, and their apologists.” Or even when you posted this about me “ Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.” I didn’t complain about you calling me dishonest and I’d challenge to find a post where I’ve directly called you dishonest because you won’t find one. These comments don’t bother me but I’d have hoped that we all operate under the same rules.


George - Particularly by someone who has admitted to ZERO knowledge of firearms and ballistics - the actual standard for assessing the physical evidence.

Herlock - You appear to be rather fixated on ballistics and firearm knowledge. Yes, I know nothing about guns but I’ve never claimed to. What I’ve stated is that the case has been made by people that do. Experts used by the WC and the HSCA were experts. As well as other experts over the years. I don’t need to be a ballistics experts to tell you that the Grassy Knoll would have been the worst location ever for a gunman.


George - Never the less I shall, as an someone assessed as a dullard by our resident expert, refrain from further opinion and content myself with the following quote:

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

Herlock - Find me the post where I’ve labelled you a ‘dullard’ George. In fact…find me the post where I’ve labelled you anything.

Are these kind of posts necessary. And why do you apply different standards to Fishy than you do to me?

Theres no need to respond George because I’m not going to keep going on about this. It’s Deja vu.

[Patrick Differ]

On the Knott Lab reconstruction photo diagram it shows their idea of the plotted course of the bullet. Did they track that back to a location where they believe that the ‘second bullet’ must have come from?

This is not a reconstruction photo diagram. It is a plot using lasers to capture the entire physical realm to scale using millions of data points. The input to the digital twin created by the 3D plot included actual photos taken at the scene and the Zapruder film. It also included the original locations of signs and posts and actual elevation of the street as it has been resurfaced by 2 inches since 1963.

The plot not only captures the sixth floor it captures the point of the gun in the window to the supposed point of entry on the Autopsy photos and xrays. It would not matter the frame because all of those positions by frame are produced at scale.

Technology advances and becomes more accurate over time. Digital Twin has been around for about 7 or 8 years.

[Patrick Differ]

I have answered this several times. Knott Labs assumes the JFK throat shot was at Zapruder frame 225, but the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK had started raising his arms to his throat in frame 224, meaning JFK was hit some tome before then.

This answer makes no sense and is technically ridiculous.

The Zapruder Frames were 18.5 frames per second and you think that somehow that an alignment on a horizontal and vertical plane and it's related acute angles changed in 1 frame?

The fact Knott uncovered is that in order to make the Single Bullet work- out of the throat and into the right armpit of Connally..Connally would have had to be sitting 6 to 10 inches to Kennedys left in the car. He wasn't. He was directly in front of Kennedy along the horizontal plane of the car door.

[GBinOz]

Conspiracy theorists are the only people in the world who favour fallible witnesses over actual physical evidence. They prefer infantile, baseless, shouts of fake. Just imaging this happening in a court trial.

Conspiracy Theorist - A term used to discredit those who see through the Bullsh*t.

I am not used to being labelled as "infantile' and "baseless". Particularly by someone who has admitted to ZERO knowledge of firearms and ballistics - the actual standard for assessing the physical evidence.

Never the less I shall, as an someone assessed as a dullard by our resident expert, refrain from further opinion and content myself with the following quote:
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

[Herlock Sholmes]

Conspiracy theorists are the only people in the world who favour fallible witnesses over actual physical evidence. They prefer infantile, baseless, shouts of fake. Just imaging this happening in a court trial.

“So, members of the jury, we have CCTV footage from a camera just 20 yards away showing Mr Smith attacking the victim with an axe. There he is, dressed exactly as he was when arrested 5 minutes later covered in the victims blood. A yet Mr Smith claims to have walked around the corner and slipped on a puddle of blood and fell on top of the already dead witness and this is verified by his best friend Mr Jones who happened to be across the road at the time standing beneath the CCTV camera scratching his head. Who do we believe?”

Lets hope that there would be no conspiracy theorists on that jury.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great...... More inconsistencies where the cancarno rifle accuracy and effectiveness is concerned. Expert witnesses have testified to the opposite .

What else you got ?

Btw can you explain the Autopsy photo of the back of JFKs head that Clint Hill makes a mockery of ?

Which one of your medical experts who conducted the autopsy where there in limo with clint Hill?

Thats right NONE.....

No Fishy. The autopsy photo and the Zapruder film make a mockery of Clint Hill’s recollection. A fallible human being against infallible evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the Knott Lab reconstruction photo diagram it shows their idea of the plotted course of the bullet. Did they track that back to a location where they believe that the ‘second bullet’ must have come from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh so when you see "Actual Evidence" you don't agree with you simply ignore it and it doesn't count? Is that it ? .

Thank you for confirming that.

And just to educate you a little on your Autopsy experts who examined the back of jfk head photo, how many were there with clint Hill and the back of the limo on the 22nd of November 1963 ?.

THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD THE SIZE OF I COULD PUT MY FIST IN .

Deal in real facts ,not warren commission conspiracy.

And an actual film footage of the incident showing no hole in the back of Kennedy’s head proves that Hill, in the heat of a traumatic moment, simply mistook the area around Kennedy’s ear with the back of his head. There was blood a gore everywhere, Kennedy’s head moved and yet you think that Clint Hill was in a position to make an accurate Forensic judgment when his entire aim was to protect Jackie. This idea is laughable Fishy. In any investigation those doing the investigation favour actual evidence (photographs, CCTV footage, camera phone footage etc) above fallible human beings. It’s noticeable how, in the ripper case, you have no problem in accepting that witnesses can be mistaken and yet in this case, when you think that those witnesses favour your point of view, you suddenly move into infallible witness mode? Also, what about the witnesses who talk about the wound being where it actually was? Why are those witnesses fallible in your cherrypicking exercise?

The Zapruder film is evidence Fishy. Conspiracy theorists are quite happy to cherrypick that too though of course. They are quite happy to keep on about the direction of Kennedy’s head movement (ignoring the forward movement of course) but they will not accept the fact that this film shows exactly where the wound in Kennedy’s head was located - and it wasn’t at the back.

Every single witness in Dealey Plaza is a questionable witness. Ask any police officer about the reliability of witnesses in a gunshot situation Fishy and they will tell you but of course that won’t suit your point of view so your likeliest next move will be to ignore it. Strangely though, a witness who was in a better position, had more time, saw things before the shots, came forward straight away was Howard Brennan of course. But no, he doesn’t fit the conspiracy so he’s dismissed in Operation Cherrypick.

And by the way, other people’s opinions aren’t evidence unless they are specialists in a field that is under discussion. Try looking further than Gil Jesus. My question again is why do you never actually discuss individual evidence but you appear to believe that value is added by cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion followed by a gloating sentence from yourself.

[GBinOz]

I have answered this several times. Knott Labs assumes the JFK throat shot was at Zapruder frame 225, but the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK had started raising his arms to his throat in frame 224, meaning JFK was hit some tome before then.

I dare say that Patrick is struggling with your somewhat condescending logic in that, while you dismiss Knottlab as not adopting the "correct" Zapruder frame, you cannot know the "correct" Zapruder frame, other than to speculate "before 224", but are at the same time adamant that Connally must have been precisely aligned for that Magic Bullet shot at that precise unknown moment.

While Knottlab start well by placing the back shot in the back, rather than in the back of the neck, they then submit to the fantasy by showing that shot emerging from the throat.

But wait. While Ford used a "^" "of the neck" after "the wound to the back" to alter the autopsy, we will now hear how we should ignore the evidence of the autopsy, Burkley, Siebert and O'Neill, Hill and Bennett, as well as the holes in the shirt and coat and hear, again, the pronouncement of the "shirt and coat were riding up" theory:

[FISHY1118]

I see your source does not understand the Army tests.

Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.

The army was testing the inherent accuracy of the rifle. An inch of deviation at 100 yards is very accurate.

There are other elements that affect shooting accuracy - the quality of the scope, target motion, the bracing of the weapon, and the skill of the shooter. But the army showed that the weapon itself was accurate.

Great...... More inconsistencies where the cancarno rifle accuracy and effectiveness is concerned. Expert witnesses have testified to the opposite .

What else you got ?

Btw can you explain the Autopsy photo of the back of JFKs head that Clint Hill makes a mockery of ?

Which one of your medical experts who conducted the autopsy where there in limo with clint Hill?

Thats right NONE.....

[Fiver]

It was under these conditions, firing the rifle in a machine rest, that Simmons called the CE 139 rifle, "quite accurate" ( ibid. ), something the Commission quoted in its Report ( pg. 194 ), but failed to reveal under what circumstances the comment was made.

It's hard to image any rifle not being accurate when set up in a rig like that.

I see your source does not understand the Army tests.

Mr. McCLOY. Your task is primarily evaluation--
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Of the characteristics of the rifle, particularly in terms of its accuracy and its wounding power, killing power?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this witness be admitted as an expert to testify in this area?
Mr. McCLOY. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you conduct a test from a machine rest, a test of round-to- round dispersion of this weapon, or have such tests conducted?
Mr. SIMMONS. May I check the serial number?
Mr. EISENBERG. I should ask first if you are familiar with this weapon.
I have handed the witness Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. We fired this weapon from a machine rest for round-to-round dispersion. We fired exactly 20 rounds in this test, and the dispersion which we measured is of conventional magnitude, about the same that we get with our present military rifles, and the standard deviation of dispersion is .29 mil.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is a fraction of a degree?
Mr. SIMMONS. A mil is an angular measurement. There are 17.7 mils to a degree.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.
Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?
Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.
Mr. McCLOY. Is it as accurate as the Springfield 1906 ammunition?
Mr. SIMMONS. I am not familiar with the difference between the M-14 in its accuracy and the 1906 Springfield. These are very similar in their dispersion.
Mr. McCLOY. At a hundred yards, what does that amount to? What is the dispersion?
Mr. SIMMONS. Well, at a hundred yards, one mil is 3.6 inches, and 0.3 of that is a little more than an inch.

The army was testing the inherent accuracy of the rifle. An inch of deviation at 100 yards is very accurate.

There are other elements that affect shooting accuracy - the quality of the scope, target motion, the bracing of the weapon, and the skill of the shooter. But the army showed that the weapon itself was accurate.

[FISHY1118]

I see your source hasn't bothered to read the witness testimony.

Mr. BALL Now, did you make a list of what you had found and took with you on that day?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we did.
Mr. BALL. Is this the list?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, it is.
Mr. BALL. And where was that made?
Mr. STOVALL. That was made down at the city hall in the Homicide Bureau.
Mr. BALL. I would like to mark this as "Stovall Exhibit B."
(Instrument referred to marked as "Stovall Exhibit B," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.

Mr. BALL. Now, you also found a magazine advertisement from Klein's Department Store, Klein's in Chicago?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; that was in the same box with the photographs.



Your source is lying again.

Dallas police did photograph the backyard photos.

No ,my source is telling the truth that which on the 23rd November 1963 , its pointing out the photo evidence missing on that day .

What was claimed by the witness after that fact is contradictory to the initial search, just like the entire warren commission .

But nice try.

[Fiver]

How is Knott Lab a lie? You haven't answered the question regarding their results. You just mimic the Party Line.

I have answered this several times. Knott Labs assumes the JFK throat shot was at Zapruder frame 225, but the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK had started raising his arms to his throat in frame 224, meaning JFK was hit some tome before then.