JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the single bullet fact because they are conspiracy theorists. The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let’s look at the reliability of self-proclaimed photography expert Robert Groden shall we? This was the man who, during the OJ Simpson trial, claimed that a photograph of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was a fake (just as he said about the obviously genuine Oswald/rifle photo) Even after 30 other photos were found of Simpson wearing the same shoes taken by a different photographer he stuck with his ludicrous claim as CT’s tend to do. He has no certifications from any professional body and was forced to admit that his experience came from working as a photo lab technician. And yet this man, in regards to the assassination, has claimed to know more than the countries top photography experts. Groden is also the guy who believes that every single shadow or silhouette found on photographs of that day show an assassin giving us a veritable battalion of gunmen in Dealey Plaza. I’d struggle to trust Groden if he told me what time it was.

On the very real Dr. Gregory, he was mentioned (by Thompson) as saying that the evidence showed that had Connally and Kennedy been hit by a single bullet then Connally would have exhibited signs at least 16 frames earlier in the Zapruder film. Thompson has been shown to have been incorrect though as he’d based it on a flawed premise. Bugliosi read the passage quoted by Thompson to Dr. Baden who asked if it was a direct quote from Gregory. Bugliosi told him that it wasn’t as there were no quotation marks. Baden then responded by saying “I thought so, it’s easy for a layperson to misinterpret what a Doctor says.” He then went on to explain in detail why Dr. Gregory had been misunderstood. Unlike CT’s Bugliosi doesn’t just take things at face value.

What value is Bell? She was a Nurse. When did she weight the fragments? She didn’t. What was her knowledge of bullets? None as far as we know. How much did she actually see? Unknown? How closely did she examine all of the fragments? Unknown.

This is the issue. CT’s believe what suits them.

Why not quote Dr. Humes, one of the Doctors who actually worked on the Kennedy autopsy

Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the single bullet fact because they are conspiracy theorists. The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Let’s look at the reliability of self-proclaimed photography expert Robert Groden shall we? This was the man who, during the OJ Simpson trial, claimed that a photograph of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was a fake (just as he said about the obviously genuine Oswald/rifle photo) Even after 30 other photos were found of Simpson wearing the same shoes taken by a different photographer. He has no certifications from any professional body and was forced to admit that his experience came from working as a photo lab technician. And yet this man, in red arcs to the assassination, has claimed to know more than the countries top photography experts. Groden is also the guy who believes that every single shadow or silhouette found on photographs of that day show an assassin giving us a veritable battalion of gunmen in Dealey Plaza. I’d struggle to trust Groden if he told me what time it was.

On the very real Dr. Gregory, he was mentioned (by Thompson) as saying that the evidence showed that had Connally and Kennedy been hit by a single bullet then Connally would have exhibited signs at least 16 frames earlier in the Zapruder film. Thompson has been shown to have been incorrect though as he’d based it on a flawed premise. Bugliosi read the passage quoted by Thompson to Dr. Baden who asked if it was a direct quote from Gregory. Bugliosi told him that it was as there were no quotation marks. Baden then responded by saying “I thought so, it’s easy for a layperson to misinterpret what a Doctor says.” He then went on to explain in detail why Dr. Gregory had been misunderstood. Unlike CT’s Bugliosi doesn’t just take things at face value.

What value is Bell? She was a Nurse. When did she weight the fragments? She didn’t. What was her knowledge of bullets? None as far as we know. How much did she actually see? Unknown? How closely did she examine all of the fragments? Unknown.

This is the issue. CT’s believe what suits them latching onto insignificances to draw far-reaching, but erroneous conclusions.

Why not quote Dr. Humes, one of the Doctors who actually worked on the Kennedy autopsy, who said, after being honest enough to admit that mistakes were made in the extraordinary circumstances: “In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is the law of physics and it is foolproof-absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress our findings.”

Parkland Nursing Supervisor Audrey Bell says, "What we took off [Governor Connally] was greater than what is missing from this bullet [CE 399]." "Much greater?" Nurse Bell was asked. "Yes," she replied (Livingstone 312). She also said the following: . . . the smallest [of the fragments] was the size of the striking end of a match and the largest at least twice that big. I have seen the picture of the magic bullet, and I can't see how it could be the bullet from which the fragments I saw came.(Groden and Livingstone 73)


What value is Bell? She was a Nurse. When did she weight the fragments? She didn’t. What was her knowledge of bullets? None as far as we know. How much did she actually see? Unknown? How closely did she examine all of the fragments? Unknown

Its a shame you have choosen to this as your arguement, its really pretty poor .

Now we can add number 4 to Nurse Bells list .

4. Nurse Bell was a Complete Stupid and Utter Moron = yes ,yes ,yes that must be it .

''Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the single bullet fact because they are conspiracy theorists. The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt''. Nonsense

Single bullett ''theory'' which has yet to be proven as fact, and never will. It has never been shown in any experiment that the bullet that caused all those different wounds to Kennedy and Connally upon inspection, replicated the pristine condition as the same as the one they found on the stretcher of parkland hospital .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The WC claimed that a paper bag and a blanket from Ruth Paine's garage also linked Oswald to the alleged murder weapon. According to the Commission, Oswald used the bag to carry the weapon into the TSBD on the day of the murder, and the bag was allegedly found in the sniper's nest. As for the blanket, the Commission said Oswald used the blanket to store the rifle in the preceding months. Yet, a prosecutor would encounter serious difficulties in trying to use this evidence to tie Oswald to the Carcano. Sylvia Meagher discusses some of the problems with these items:





The Commission . . . offered ''no firm physical evidence of a link between the paper bag and the rifle''. The [Warren] Report does not mention the negative examination made by
FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said ''explicitly'' that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was in a well-oiled condition. It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions.

Equally significant, there were no oil stains or traces on the blanket in which a well-oiled rifle ostensibly had been stored--not for hours but for months. This serves further to weaken, if not destroy, the Commission's arbitrary finding that the Carcano rifle had been wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination. (Meagher 62)
In fact, although the paper bag was allegedly found in the sniper's nest, incredibly, the Dallas police "failed" to take a crime-scene photograph of the bag lying in the nest! The bag does not appear in any of the pictures that were taken of the sniper's nest that afternoon. Some WC apologists have suggested that Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker, the two policemen who took snapshots of the nest, didn't photograph the bag because they didn't notice it. This is surely a farfetched explanation.


So in this section we discover the Warren Commission offerered ''No firm phyical evidence'' of a link between the paper bag and the Rifle that Oswald allegedly carried into thr TSBD .

But we have contradictory evidence by the FBI own expert James Cadigan , . Enter Lone Gunman theorist answer to the below questions .

1. James Cadigan is a Liar =yes

2. James Cadigan was Mistaken =yes

3. James Cadigan doesnt Exist =yes


1. Nurse Audrey Bell destroys the Pristine Bullet Theory .

2 . FBI Agent James Cadigan destroys the Rifle in the Paperbag Theory .

3 . Next ?

Firstly, we have two witnesses who saw Oswald carrying the package which he put on the back seat of Frazier car. Oswald himself told Frazier the laughable story about the curtain rods. Frazier admitted that he didn’t look closely as the package so it’s hardly surprising that any description of it’s possible dimensions (by him or Randle) might be questioned but it clearly couldn’t be mistaken for his usual lunch packet because it was considerably larger. So why aren’t you asking if Frazier and Randle were lying? Why aren’t you asking, if Oswald was innocent, why did he lie about carrying the package? Why did he lie about owning a rifle? I wonder why you avoid these questions?

You are left relying on the usual CT’s call of ‘they were all in on it.’ All the police officers who saw the packaging on the 6th floor where lying. And I guess that the three fingerprint experts - Sebastian F. Latona identified the two prints on the packaging as being Oswald’s and in a seepage examination Ronald G. Wittmus and Arthur Mandela also confirmed the prints as Oswald’s. They were all ‘in on it’ I suppose Fishy?

The James Cadigan quote is another perfect example of the selective quoting of the trivial. What does he prove? Absolutely nothing of real evidential value:

“It’s difficult to understand…..etc”

So what he’s saying is that he might have expected to have found traces. Not that there absolutely must have been.

We have two witnesses who saw him with the packaging, numerous officers who saw it on the 6th floor and three experts who conclusively found Oswald’s prints on it. It’s well and truly game over on that point Fishy.

You’re making very weak points here Fishy. That the police didn’t photograph the packaging? Tryst to the mill for a conspiracy theorist. No errors accepted. Everything explained with a sinister slant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

These points are what you would expect to arrive at when you only read conspiracy theory texts.

[FISHY1118]

The bullet wasn’t ‘pristine’ Fishy. This has become a buzzword for conspiracy theorists who keep parroting it. It was only ‘pristine’ at the nose end. The bottom of the bullet was damaged and it was flattened on one side. It wasn’t a ‘pristine’ bullet. It was a damaged bullet.

Just look at what she actually said: “I have seen the picture of the magic bullet, and I can't see how it could be the bullet from which the fragments I saw came.”

So you take the unclear opinion of a non-expert over the opinions of the experts? Why? Because all of the experts were allegedly ‘in on it.’

Show me where it was damaged on one side ?

[FISHY1118]

These points are what you would expect to arrive at when you only read conspiracy theory texts.

Dont confuse ''conspiracy'' with ''contradiction'' as apoligist seem to always do

[FISHY1118]

Firstly, we have two witnesses who saw Oswald carrying the package which he put on the back seat of Frazier car. Oswald himself told Frazier the laughable story about the curtain rods. Frazier admitted that he didn’t look closely as the package so it’s hardly surprising that any description of it’s possible dimensions (by him or Randle) might be questioned but it clearly couldn’t be mistaken for his usual lunch packet because it was considerably larger. So why aren’t you asking if Frazier and Randle were lying? Why aren’t you asking, if Oswald was innocent, why did he lie about carrying the package? Why did he lie about owning a rifle? I wonder why you avoid these questions?

You are left relying on the usual CT’s call of ‘they were all in on it.’ All the police officers who saw the packaging on the 6th floor where lying. And I guess that the three fingerprint experts - Sebastian F. Latona identified the two prints on the packaging as being Oswald’s and in a seepage examination Ronald G. Wittmus and Arthur Mandela also confirmed the prints as Oswald’s. They were all ‘in on it’ I suppose Fishy?

The James Cadigan quote is another perfect example of the selective quoting of the trivial. What does he prove? Absolutely nothing of real evidential value:

“It’s difficult to understand…..etc”

So what he’s saying is that he might have expected to have found traces. Not that there absolutely must have been.

We have two witnesses who saw him with the packaging, numerous officers who saw it on the 6th floor and three experts who conclusively found Oswald’s prints on it. It’s well and truly game over on that point Fishy.

You’re making very weak points here Fishy. That the police didn’t photograph the packaging? Tryst to the mill for a conspiracy theorist. No errors accepted. Everything explained with a sinister slant.

Show me again where you can proove or where the warren commission tied the Rifle to the Paper bag as proof Oswald carried the gun into the TSBD ? . Without your usual hearsay, he said, or she said nonsense.

[FISHY1118]

Moving right along to next lot of contradictions of the Warren Commission report


1. Nurse Audrey Bell destroys the Pristine Bullet Theory .

2 . FBI Agent James Cadigan destroys the Rifle in the Paperbag Theory .

3 . Next ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkland Nursing Supervisor Audrey Bell says, "What we took off [Governor Connally] was greater than what is missing from this bullet [CE 399]." "Much greater?" Nurse Bell was asked. "Yes," she replied (Livingstone 312). She also said the following: . . . the smallest [of the fragments] was the size of the striking end of a match and the largest at least twice that big. I have seen the picture of the magic bullet, and I can't see how it could be the bullet from which the fragments I saw came.(Groden and Livingstone 73)


What value is Bell? She was a Nurse. When did she weight the fragments? She didn’t. What was her knowledge of bullets? None as far as we know. How much did she actually see? Unknown? How closely did she examine all of the fragments? Unknown

Its a shame you have choosen to this as your arguement, its really pretty poor .

Now we can add number 4 to Nurse Bells list .

4. Nurse Bell was a Complete Stupid and Utter Moron = yes ,yes ,yes that must be it .

''Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the single bullet fact because they are conspiracy theorists. The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt''. Nonsense

Single bullett ''theory'' which has yet to be proven as fact, and never will. It has never been shown in any experiment that the bullet that caused all those different wounds to Kennedy and Connally upon inspection, replicated the pristine condition as the same as the one they found on the stretcher of parkland hospital .

It does absolutely no such thing George. Neither Frazier or Randle whipped out a tape measure to check the exact dimensions of the package and Frazier admitted that he only saw it briefly. What he did notice straight away was that it was much bulkier than his usual lunch packet which Frazier saw regularly. It was also suggested that the way that Oswald carried it could have meant that it’s exact size was difficult to gauge exactly.

Then it’s important that we ask why would Frazier have lied about Oswald’s ‘curtain rods’ nonsense? Oswald denied saying this but you appear to prefer to suggest that Frazier made this up for absolutely no reason, unless he was ‘in on it’ too?

Jack Dougherty is quoted as saying that Oswald was carrying nothing when he entered the TSBD but this too would make Oswald a lie because he said that he had his lunch pack on him. So Dougherty is worthless.

Marina said “ I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.”

So she wasn’t confident. And let’s remember that he’d always in the past carried his lunch packet to work. And let’s further remember that when Oswald claimed to have eaten his ‘lunch’ with Junior Jarman they asked him about it and Jarman said that it was untrue. Oswald’s blatant lies appear to get a free pass though whilst insignificances are immediately latched on to weave conspiracies.

The packaging had 2 fingerprints on which over the course of 2 separate examinations were proven by 3 experts to have been Oswald’s.

The point against Brennan is way beyond weak. Conspiracy theorist have tried absolutely every tactic to try and discredit him. The point about the killer standing was a minor error and yet conspiracy theorist try and bolster the blatantly wrong Rowlands. A man known as a liar/exaggerator by those that knew him. But this kind of selectivity is par for the course. Brennan is a strong, although certainly not perfect witness. But unless he’s considered as being ‘in on it’ too (which wouldn’t surprise me in the least considering what CT’s are willing to stoop to) then we have to say that he was unbelievable lucky. As the assassination was occurring, this man entirely unconnected to any agencies, lucky guessed which window the shots were fired from. I don’t think that he could see the sniper’s nest from his position or that he’d been told about it by some passing Secret Service agent disguised as a Labrador!

And finally, whatever Oswald’s previous history and what’re level his connection to the CIA it does NOT IN ANY WAY point to a conspiracy. If he’d been a member of a stamp collectors club might we then assume a conspiracy of stamp collectors? What it might explain though is a level of embarrassment from the authorities and a desire to withhold information. This kind of possible covering up doesn’t mean that there was a conspiracy to kill the President though. And from even a cursory look at the whole we can see that the idea of a conspiracy is little short preposterous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkland Nursing Supervisor Audrey Bell says, "What we took off [Governor Connally] was greater than what is missing from this bullet [CE 399]." "Much greater?" Nurse Bell was asked. "Yes," she replied (Livingstone 312). She also said the following: . . . the smallest [of the fragments] was the size of the striking end of a match and the largest at least twice that big. I have seen the picture of the magic bullet, and I can't see how it could be the bullet from which the fragments I saw came.(Groden and Livingstone 73)


What value is Bell? She was a Nurse. When did she weight the fragments? She didn’t. What was her knowledge of bullets? None as far as we know. How much did she actually see? Unknown? How closely did she examine all of the fragments? Unknown

Its a shame you have choosen to this as your arguement, its really pretty poor .

Now we can add number 4 to Nurse Bells list .

4. Nurse Bell was a Complete Stupid and Utter Moron = yes ,yes ,yes that must be it .

''Conspiracy theorists refuse to accept the single bullet fact because they are conspiracy theorists. The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt''. Nonsense

Single bullett ''theory'' which has yet to be proven as fact, and never will. It has never been shown in any experiment that the bullet that caused all those different wounds to Kennedy and Connally upon inspection, replicated the pristine condition as the same as the one they found on the stretcher of parkland hospital .

Repeating the same quote won’t help Fishy.

Who’s opinion carries more weight? A nurse or a Doctor actually performing the autopsy in question?

You go for the Nurse. Reason goes for the Doctor.

Was Dr. Humes a ‘completely stupid and utter moron?’ I can only assume that you’ll answer yes to that one Fishy. Get real.

The SBT has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt by a CGI reconstruction. It explains the wounds and matches up exactly with the Zapruder film.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Show me again where you can proove or where the warren commission tied the Rifle to the Paper bag as proof Oswald carried the gun into the TSBD ? . Without your usual hearsay, he said, or she said nonsense.

Did Frazier and Randle lie about seeing Oswald put a bulky package onto the back seat?

Did Frazier regularly take Oswald to work and so was used to seeing his lunch packet which is why the package on the day of the assassination stood out (because it was bigger and bulkier)

Did Frazier lie about Oswald telling him that the package contained curtain rods and if so why would he have lied?

Did 3 experts find Oswald’s fingerprints on the package?

Try actually thinking rather than reading idiots like Groden.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Moving right along to next lot of contradictions of the Warren Commission report


1. Nurse Audrey Bell destroys the Pristine Bullet Theory .

2 . FBI Agent James Cadigan destroys the Rifle in the Paperbag Theory .

3 . Next ?

A Nurse with no knowledge of bullets, according to you, trumps Dr. Humes who actually performed the autopsy. Get real Fishy.

Cadigan makes a clearly inconclusive point. You should read your quotes properly before using them:

“It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye.”

He’s not saying that there must have been oil on the packaging had it contained a rifle. Only that he might have expected it to have had oil on it. If he’d have meant it as a definite point he would have said so…but he didn’t…..so it’s nothing like conclusive.

Weak…weak…weak.

[FISHY1118]

Did Frazier and Randle lie about seeing Oswald put a bulky package onto the back seat?

Did Frazier regularly take Oswald to work and so was used to seeing his lunch packet which is why the package on the day of the assassination stood out (because it was bigger and bulkier)

Did Frazier lie about Oswald telling him that the package contained curtain rods and if so why would he have lied?

Did 3 experts find Oswald’s fingerprints on the package?

Try actually thinking rather than reading idiots like Groden.

ill ask you again , maybe ill get a straight answer this time . i have to repeat myself because you just repeat the same thing over and over with out proof .

Show me again where you can proove or where the ''warren commission tied the Rifle to the Paper bag as proof Oswald carried the gun into the TSBD'' ? . Without your usual hearsay, he said, or she said nonsense.

[FISHY1118]

Moving right along to next lot of contradictions of the Warren Commission report


1. Nurse Audrey Bell destroys the Pristine Bullet Theory .

2 . FBI Agent James Cadigan destroys the Rifle in the Paperbag Theory .

3 . Next ?


And there are many .

[FISHY1118]

While your at it ,show me that bullett that was flattened on one side and pristine on the nose end ? ,even though the nose end shattered bones in both Kennedy and Connally .

[FISHY1118]

Are the partial prints Oswald's? Fingerprint experts Jerry Powdrill and Vincent J. Scalice examined photos of the prints in 1993 and concluded they were Oswald's. Many conspiracy theorists are skeptical of this identification and point out that the prints were studied carefully in 1963 by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, a highly skilled and experienced fingerprint expert, and found to be worthless. WC defenders reply that Latona didn't have access to the same photos of the prints that Powdrill and Scalice were able to use. However, not only was Latona able to study the original prints themselves, but he had additional pictures taken of them for examination purposes. Latona's WC testimony leads many researchers to doubt the validity of Powdrill's and Scalice's identification. Here is what Latona said about his analysis of the prints: Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value. Now, I did not stop there.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by the powder method?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; they had.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was that a gray powder?
Mr. LATONA. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible at all. Representative FORD. As far as you are concerned.
Mr. LATONA. That's right.
Mr. DULLES. Is it likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr. LATONA. No, sir; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d--there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph.
So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer--I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department.
Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom--we could not improve the condition of these latent prints. So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.
After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value any prints of value--I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. (4 H 21)
Lone-gunman theorists assert that the Dallas police found Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon. However, the palm print had no chain of evidence, and the Dallas police did not tell the FBI about the print until AFTER Oswald was dead (he was shot by Jack Ruby on November 24). Until late in the evening of the 24th, journalists assigned to the Dallas police station were reporting that, according to their police sources, Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the rifle (Lifton 356 n).
Dallas police officials said the same thing during public interviews, i.e., that Oswald's prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI's Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald's prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle's barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald's dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home (Lifton 354-356


More conflicting and contradictory evidence of the Warren Commission report ''Lone Gunman Theory answers below ''
,
1. Sabastian Latona was a lair , = yes

2 Sabastian Latona did not exist =yes

3 Sabastian Latona was a utter moron like Audrey Bell yes


Next please .