JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

And what about these Parkland doctors Fishy?


Dr. Charles Baxter testified that the head exit wound was in the “temporal parietal” area.

Dr. Robert Grossman, the Neurosurgeon who accompanied Dr. William Kemp Clark into the trauma room said that the large defect he saw was “in the parietal area above the right ear.” Bugliosi, being an honest investigator, added that Grossman’s credibility on this matter might be questioned though. He elucidates in an endnote which is on the cd-Rom which accompanies his book which I don’t have the facility to read so I can’t explain further.

Dr. Adolphe Giesecke Jr testified that the exit wound extended from “ the brow line [ridge above the eye] to the occiput on the left (sic) hand side of the head.”

Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, anaesthesiologist, said he saw “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)”

Dr. Kenneth Salyer said that the exit wound was in the “right temporal region.”

Dr. Donald Seldin, Chairman of the Department of Medicine, said that “ the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered….I believe that the official story is accurate in all details.”


Would you please go on record and call these 6 doctors liars please.

Would you please show ''evidence'' any of the above, on the assassination day ,in truama room 1 who saw and testified to the massive hole in back of JFKS HEAD ? ''not exit wounds ''

[FISHY1118]

Looks like Fishy has gone to phone Gil Jesus.

I see your trying to turn the thread to shite with your usual petty digs . It wont work . ''ACTUAL EVIDENCE'' always sort that out .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see your trying to turn the thread to shite with your usual petty digs . It wont work . ''ACTUAL EVIDENCE'' always sort that out .

Like the Zapruder film which proves categorically, in colour, that there was no large rear of the head wound.

[GBinOz]

The JFK head and neck wounds: the incongruities. MUST-SEE VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9v0rpOfwiE&ab_channel=VincePalamara

More evidence the Warren Commission faked the Autopsy photos of JFKs head .


All these people, according to the lone gunman gullible believers either lied , were mistaken , were stupid , never existed, and the brand new one to the list ''FALLIBLE ''!!!!!!!!!!


JUST CHECK OUT WHAT CLINT HILL SAYS AT 28.13 MIN IN . GAME OVER FOLKS , AND HE NEVER CHANGED HIS EYEWITHNESS ACCOUNT ..... EVER..., ''I WAS THERE ON THE DAY, IN THE LIMO''

Thanks for the link Fishy. I was impressed by the knowledge and common sense displayed by the Willis family (who were actually there taking photos) at around the 33 minute mark, and Crenshaw's comments in the last minute.

I suppose you have seen this video, but just in case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc&t=3596s&ab_channel=e2films

Brugioni strikes me as a man of integrity and character.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would you please show ''evidence'' any of the above, on the assassination day ,in truama room 1 who saw and testified to the massive hole in back of JFKS HEAD ? ''not exit wounds ''

As ever your posting becomes slightly confusing when you get angry Fishy so I’m having difficulty understanding this one I’m afraid.

The doctors in my post all saw Kennedy at Parkland and they all said that the wound was on the side of his head. So we are in a situation where we have a majority saying back of the head and a minority saying side of the head.

So…if you believe that the majority should take precedence ‘as a rule’ then obviously you would have to be consistent and fair with that rule. What I mean is that you wouldn’t only apply it when it suits you would you Fishy? Of course you wouldn't. So with that in mind you would also side with the majority of witnesses who said that they only heard three shots. And you would also side with the majority of witnesses who believed that the shots came from the direction of Dealey Plaza? And while we’re on the subject of ‘going with the majority’ you would have to accept of course the large majority of witnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of JD Tippit.

Just being fair of course Fishy

[FISHY1118]

Like the Zapruder film which proves categorically, in colour, that there was no large rear of the head wound.

Great,now your saying all that skull , tissue and brain matter exploding out of jfks head all came out , but left his front face and head , and the back of his head in perfect condition as per the two fake autopsy photos ????? yer right .

I guess youll be giving your Zupruder film argument the ass now . ?

[FISHY1118]

As ever your posting becomes slightly confusing when you get angry Fishy so I’m having difficulty understanding this one I’m afraid.

The doctors in my post all saw Kennedy at Parkland and they all said that the wound was on the side of his head. So we are in a situation where we have a majority saying back of the head and a minority saying side of the head.

So…if you believe that the majority should take precedence ‘as a rule’ then obviously you would have to be consistent and fair with that rule. What I mean is that you wouldn’t only apply it when it suits you would you Fishy? Of course you wouldn't. So with that in mind you would also side with the majority of witnesses who said that they only heard three shots. And you would also side with the majority of witnesses who believed that the shots came from the direction of Dealey Plaza? And while we’re on the subject of ‘going with the majority’ you would have to accept of course the large majority of witnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of JD Tippit.

Just being fair of course Fishy

OF course your confused ,because you dont know what point your arguing ,stick to the point and topic. Oh dear boy herlock ,dont ever think i get angry as i dont , im having a ball here .

[FISHY1118]

Thanks for the link Fishy. I was impressed by the knowledge and common sense displayed by the Willis family (who were actually there taking photos) at around the 33 minute mark, and Crenshaw's comments in the last minute.

I suppose you have seen this video, but just in case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QIuu6hsAc&t=3596s&ab_channel=e2films

Brugioni strikes me as a man of integrity and character.

Thanks George , Many thanks .

[Herlock Sholmes]

16 Witnesses


The FBI interviewed 16 witnesses who worked in the Texas School Book Depository who stated that they had not seen any strangers in the building on November 22, 1963 nor had they ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald AT ANY TIME prior to the assassination.

These witness statements can all be found in Volume 22 of the Warren Commission Hearings ( CE 1381 ).

The witnesses were:

Virginia Barnum pg. 636
Jane Berry pg. 637
Edna Caso pg. 639
Avery Davis pg. 642
Elsie Dorman pg. 644
Sandra Elerson pg. 646
Betty Foster pg. 647
Dorothy Garner pg. 648
Georgia Hendrix pg. 649
Yola Hopson pg. 653
Judy Johnson pg. 656
Ruth Nelson pg. 665
Madie Reese pg. 669
Joyce Stansbery pg. 674
Sandra Styles, pg. 676
Mary Lee Williams pg. 682

By their own admission, having never seen Oswald in the building meant that they didn't know all of the employees of the TSBD.

So this raises some questions:

How could they know there were no strangers in the building if they didn't know all of the employees ?
Oswald worked in the building from October 16th- November 22nd ( 27 days not counting Veteran's day ).
That's 216 hours in that building.


And they never saw him. Not even in the lunchroom.

How much weight do we give these witness statements that they didn't see any strangers in the building on the morning of the assassination when they didn't see Oswald for 27 days ?

My guess is not much.

WHOS RUNNING THIS WARREN COMMISSION REPORT . LARRY , MOE , CURLY ?????

Nice ‘logic.’

So Oswald entered the TSBD and vanished?

[Herlock Sholmes]

OF course your confused ,because you dont know what point your arguing ,stick to the point and topic. Oh dear boy herlock ,dont ever think i get angry as i dont , im having a ball here .

But you don’t answer the point.

To be expected.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great,now your saying all that skull , tissue and brain matter exploding out of jfks head all came out , but left his front face and head , and the back of his head in perfect condition as per the two fake autopsy photos ????? yer right .

I guess youll be giving your Zupruder film argument the ass now . ?

At all points you can see the rear of Kennedy’s head.

No cavernous wound.

No damage.

Absolute proof that the witnesses were wrong (apart from those that correctly placed the wound on the side of Kennedy’s head of course)

[Fiver]

The best known quote is JFK vowing to break the CIA 'into a thousand pieces.'

It's very popular quite, but no one is giving an actual source showing that JFK ever said it.

[Fiver]

There is no reliable evidence they ever met. Kostikov could not speak English and Oswald's Russian was basic..

So you're saying that Kostikov and the other Russians lied in order to implicate themselves in a Conspiracy to murder JFK?

[cobalt]

It's very popular quite, but no one is giving an actual source showing that JFK ever said it.

It would be interesting therefore to know when it first appeared in the public domain.

So you're saying that Kostikov and the other Russians lied in order to implicate themselves in a Conspiracy to murder JFK?

I haven't found a link to Kostikov confirming that he met Oswald. And less surprisingly, I have never seen a shred of evidence that he oversaw an assassination unit as part of his KGB duties.

Whatever, we are still left with the puzzle of why someone would seek to impersonate Oswald over the telephone. Of all the people who visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in the few months preceding the JFK assassination, why pick out him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As ever your posting becomes slightly confusing when you get angry Fishy so I’m having difficulty understanding this one I’m afraid.

The doctors in my post all saw Kennedy at Parkland and they all said that the wound was on the side of his head. So we are in a situation where we have a majority saying back of the head and a minority saying side of the head.

So…if you believe that the majority should take precedence ‘as a rule’ then obviously you would have to be consistent and fair with that rule. What I mean is that you wouldn’t only apply it when it suits you would you Fishy? Of course you wouldn't. So with that in mind you would also side with the majority of witnesses who said that they only heard three shots. And you would also side with the majority of witnesses who believed that the shots came from the direction of Dealey Plaza? And while we’re on the subject of ‘going with the majority’ you would have to accept of course the large majority of witnesses who positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of JD Tippit.

Just being fair of course Fishy

Should read - direction of TSBD of course.