JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

“Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post.“

People say various things George but only I seem to get pulled up on them by other posters.

[Fiver]

One of those flunkies the Commission called on was Marine Master Sergeant James Zahm, who told the Commission that Oswald's training and the equipment he used made him capable of committing the crime. ( 11 H 309 )
But Zahm was neither an expert on Oswald, the scope or the rifle. He had never spent time on a firing range with Oswald. He had never test fired the rifle or tried to sight in the scope.

I see your source has no problems defaming people. And is just fine with ignoring what Zahm actually said. Zahm was never asked to evaluate the rifle or the scope.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

Sgt Zahm based his conclusions on Oswald's shooting scores in the military.

So did Major Anderson.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?
Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The big issue of course is one that Fiver and I have mentioned numerous times but one that appears to be ‘water off a ducks back’ to those supporting conspiracy. It is the glaring contradiction of, on one had a group of conspirators so powerful that they can influence/control the CIA, the FBI, the police, the medical profession, the Secret Service, the military, the autopsy pathologists and the Warren Commission and yet, on the other hand a bunch of clowns that could make Laurel and Hardy look like geniuses. Why doesn’t this bother them? Why does this staggering anomaly bounce off them with no effect? Clearly it has to be about what they ‘want’ or ‘need’ to be true. There can be no other explanation for this ongoing and remarkable situation. On and on they go about disputed trajectories and disputed measurements, and exercises in witness cherrypicking and yet when you present them with something that provably makes no sense we get nothing sensible in response (usually nothing at all)


Would any conspiracy have put themselves in a position where so much could go wrong - NO.

Would any conspiracy have had so many people ‘in on it’ - NO.

Would any conspiracy have left themselves so much still to do after the event - NO


Therefore this conspiracy cannot have happened. Just on those three points alone (and there are more of course) No conspirators would have plumbed the depths of stupidity like that. This is ALL that we need to consider. No silly quibbling is required. The conspiracy couldn’t have happened. Therefore everything is explained. When we have a situation where fallible eyewitnesses are given precedence over actual physical evidence then it’s time to wave the white flag. You cannot debate with this kind of approach. A conspiracy supporter cannot reason his way out of a point that he has t reasoned his way into in the first place. It’s like debating with someone who claims that his particular ripper suspect had super powers. Conspiracy supporters just call ‘fake’ when they come up against evidence that categorically proves them wrong. Every brick wall of evidence…fake.

Fishy, as an example, thinks that if someone believes that they’ve seen something but a photograph says otherwise then it’s the photograph that’s wrong. Yes folks this is what we are constantly up against. People using this kind of ‘logic’ whilst talking down to us non-believers in conspiracy. It’s so obvious, or at least it should be. If a witnesses testimony doesn’t match a photograph or film footage this is under no circumstances proof of faking. But this is exactly how Fishy thinks…and he’s far from alone sadly. As if we are the ones coming up with craziness. I’ll say it again…ask the police….photographs and film footage trumps eyewitnesses..every time. Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence.

Perhaps we should ask again…which side is it that came up with Badge Man, Umbrella Man, Sewer Man, Prayer Man, Menninger’s madness, Lifton’s lunacy, Greer as the gunman, Garrison’s 1000 gunmen homosexual thrill kill theory, Beverly Oliver and her camera that didn’t exist, Gordon Arnold who became invisible on camera, Ricky White and his memories as a baby. I could add more and more but how many crazy theories do you see coming from the LG side. None. It’s a bit of an uneven distribution would you say? And yet the conspiracy side constantly try to assume the high ground. What planet are we on. Planet Conspiracy I’m afraid.

[GBinOz]

I’ll say it again…ask the police….photographs and film footage trumps eyewitnesses..every time. Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence.


I could add more and more but how many crazy theories do you see coming from the LG side. None. It’s a bit of an uneven distribution would you say?

Here's the FBI photo of the evidence found on the sixth floor of the TSBD:




Photo trumps eyewitnesses - "Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence". That's settled, only two shots fired through the Carcano. Or were these the cases from the Mauser?

The crazy theory that is crazier than all the others put together is the Magic Bullet theory, put together by an ambitious junior lawyer, who wasn't at the autopsy, without having seen ANY photographs or film footage, just DRAWINGS that shifted the bullet wound from the "back" to the "back ^ of the neck".

There are many other crazy theories "from the LG side" which have been detailed before, so there is no point in repeating them only to have them again fall on deaf ears.

[Fiver]

[An upper floor encounter

In his original affidavit, Dallas Officer Marrion Baker said that in their climb up rear stairwell, he and Roy Truly encountered a man on "the third or fourth floor" who was "walking away from the stairway" and who Truly vouched for. This man, Baker said was wearing "a light brown jacket".

I suggest that this was NOT the second floor Oswald-in-the-lunchroom-vestibule encounter. He didn't even match Oswald's description. This was a second, separate encounter with a man who was coming down the rear stairwell, heard the commotion on the second floor and tried to duck out on the floor he was on.

That's why Baker saw him walking away from the stairway.

Your source is lying again. The man matches Oswald's description.

The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

And Baker said it was Oswald.

Representative BOGGS -Let me ask one other question. You later, when you recognized this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice, did he say anything or was there any expression after Mr. Truly said he worked here?
Mr. BAKER - At that time I never did look back toward him. After he says, "Yes, he works here," I turned immediately and run on up, I halfway turned then when I was talking to Mr. Truly.

SENATOR COOPER - Did you see anyone else while you were in the building, other than this man you have identified later as Oswald, and Mr. Truly?
Mr. BAKER - On the first floor there were two men. As we came through the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us.

SENATOR COOPER - Anyway, as you walked up the stairs could you see into each floor space as you passed from floor to floor?
Mr. BAKER - Partly. Now, this building has got pillars in it, you know, and then it has got books, cases of books stacked all in it. And the best that I could, you know, I would look through there and see if I could see anybody.
SENATOR COOPER - Did you see anyone?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir.
SENATOR COOPER - When you looked?
Mr. BAKER - Not from the second floor on up.

[Fiver]

On March 19, 1964, Caster provided the FBI with an alibi for the first time, which it never looked into, that he was having lunch with Professor Vernon V. Payne at North Texas State University in Denton when the President was assassinated.

Your source is good for a laugh, since it appears he believes a Conspiracy with the resources of the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police, and the CIA would pick a 45-year-old assistant manager with the Southwestern Publishing Company as the best gunman they could find. And then that this bumbler would bring two rifles to the TSBD two days before the assassination and show them to witnesses.

[Fiver]

There's testimony that a Mauser was in the building two days before. It was reported that they discovered a Mauser on the 22nd. Yet people on this forum look at replacing a Mauser with a Mannlicher Carcano as if it was some kind of incredible, impossible feat.

Replacing a Mauser with a Carcano would have been a feat of incredible stupidity. But that is the Conspiracy you claim - a pack of bumbling buffoons who planted the wrong rifle, the wrong bullets, and the wrong jacket.

[Fiver]

What a lot of people don't realize is how important clothing is to the "positive identification" of a suspect. Unless you can prove that the suspect changed clothes AFTER committing the crime, the identification of a suspect's clothes is secondary only to facial recognition in a witness' identification of a suspect.

And here your source dodges the evidence that multiple witnesses ID'd Oswald by his face.

[Fiver]

]The Commission failed to mention in its Report that witnesses had described the Tippit killer's jacket as a sport jacket, dark in color and of a rough fabric, all descriptions that did not match the jacket in evidence.

Lets look at the witnesses.

Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.

Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.

Jimmy Earl Burt - At that moment he caught a glimpse of a man running on the sidewalk on the south side of the street. The man at this point had reached the intersection of 10th and Patton Streets. He described this man as a white male, approximately 5'8". He was wearing a light colored short jacket.

Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.

Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. Barbara DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. Virginia DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.

Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a sort of light-gray-looking jacket.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.

William A. Smith - He said he was too far away from the individual to positively identify him but he said he was a white male, about 5' 7" to 5'8", 20 to 25 years of age, 150-160, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants.

Jack R Tatum - At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car.

So your source is lying again. Barbara Davis was the only witness to describe the jacket as dark, or a sport jacket, or said it was a wool fabric. None of the other 10 witnesses said it was a sport jacket. None of the other 10 witnesses said the jacket was rough fabric. None of the other 10 witnesses said the jacket was dark in color and 9 of them said it was light in color.