JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no other reason for him stopping Oswald unless it’s suggested that Tippit is part of a conspiracy but where does it stop? Dale Myer’s has written an 800 page book analysing the Tippit murder and saw no evidence of conspiracy. The alleged wallet left on the scene appears to have been an error. Witnesses ID’d Oswald. Some clashed on details but that’s always going to happen. He had the gun that killed Tippit on him when arrested. The ballistics matched. End of story. Oswald killed Tippit. He also pulled the gun on the officer that arrested him. How much clearer could this be? It’s so obvious. Oswald guilty beyond a single shred of doubt. Could he have been innocent. No, impossible. The Kennedy assassination is an open and shut case. It was solved in November 1963.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A) I mean, ask yourself honestly, what would plotters do if they wanted to kill the President and had all of those resources to hand? Would they do something along the lines of…Find one of the thousand of upper floor rooms in any town on any one of Kennedy’s trips. Find a top quality assassin. Equip him with the best gun that money can by. One or 2 shots and it’s done. Have a car waiting out the back to get him away from the scene then either get him out of the country with a name change or kill him. No paper trail. No witnesses.


I think that’s a fairly accurate description of what actually happened, although more than one shooter would have been required. A previous attempt in Chicago had to be aborted at the last minute when JFK cancelled his visit.

I think one weakness in HS’ reasoning is that he continues to assume that Oswald was part of the conspiracy and therefore an obvious weak link. But Oswald saw himself as a ‘patsy’ because he was not part of the conspiracy. Shooting JFK was one part of the conspiracy, but the public would never have swallowed the cold blooded assassination outlined above. Creating a narrative of the lone gunman as a smokescreen was essential. That was the role assigned to Oswald, something he realized once he was cornered in the cinema.

As for Oswald being a ‘minor’ player within CIA circles, what we know contradicts this. He was selected for a spying mission inside the USSR, in the guise of a disaffected US citizen, which very few were entrusted to do. And he was significant enough to be impersonated (according to J. Edgar Hoover) in Mexico City prior to the assassination.

Oswald only used the word ‘patsy’ as a desperate attempt to say that he’d been picked on because he’d lived in Russia. He said exactly that but the quote is always edited by conspiracy theorists.

Why create a smokescreen when they could have had Kennedy killed easily by an anonymous assassin who was spirited away after the murder? Why involve a guy who might be portrayed as a poor shot or as using a poor weapon. Or one who might have been able to prove that he wasn’t on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Why put themselves in a position where they had to manipulate and control witnesses including Doctors? Why put themselves in a position where they had to manipulate ballistics evidence because there were more than one gunman? Why put themselves in a position where they had to disguise and falsify medical evidence? Why put themselves in a position where they had to persuade people like the Warren Commissioners and their counsellors and investigators to take part in a corrupt investigation that managed, despite the obvious scrounging, to hide the conspiracy? How could they have controlled the witnesses, any one of whom might have taken a clear as day photograph of a Grassy Knoll gunman?

The answer is that no one would……under any circumstance. The above paragraph should kill all talk of conspiracy.

[cobalt]

Oswald’s claim to be a ‘patsy’ was obviously linked to his political activities, which in his case included living in the USSR and pretending to be pro-Castro; he realised that a ‘patsy’ had to have a convincing back story that the public would swallow and that was what he voiced in the midnight press conference.

A paragraph of rhetorical questions is not an argument. It is a list of implied assertions.

A conspiracy can never be perfect since it is founded on lies, but when the conspirators control the investigation then awkward details can be sidestepped or deleted. JFK was killed in Dallas. Johnson was in control of Dallas politics, which oversaw Law Enforcement, on the day of the assassination. Johnson became President within two hours of the assassination and oversaw the FBI and the CIA. Not just the President but the only suspect were both killed in public to hammer home the point of where power now lay. The rhetorical question I would ask is the one asked by Jim Garrison: ‘Who dare call it treason?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oswald’s claim to be a ‘patsy’ was obviously linked to his political activities, which in his case included living in the USSR and pretending to be pro-Castro; he realised that a ‘patsy’ had to have a convincing back story that the public would swallow and that was what he voiced in the midnight press conference.

A paragraph of rhetorical questions is not an argument. It is a list of implied assertions.

A conspiracy can never be perfect since it is founded on lies, but when the conspirators control the investigation then awkward details can be sidestepped or deleted. JFK was killed in Dallas. Johnson was in control of Dallas politics, which oversaw Law Enforcement, on the day of the assassination. Johnson became President within two hours of the assassination and oversaw the FBI and the CIA. Not just the President but the only suspect were both killed in public to hammer home the point of where power now lay. The rhetorical question I would ask is the one asked by Jim Garrison: ‘Who dare call it treason?’

You can’t be serious about the emboldened part? This isn’t a Dan Brown novel. Assassinations don’t occur for reasons of symbolism.

My paragraph is one of perfect truth. The idea of someone undertaking a conspiracy of this magnitude; requiring all that it did, is simply not even approaching possible. Anyone attempting to do it would have to have been a collection of the worlds stupidest men. It didn’t happen.

Unbalanced man takes a gun to work and shoots Kennedy then flees the scene and kills a police officer who tried to arrest him.

Events involving his wife and Frazier prove him guilty. The fact that he got the taxi driver to drop him 3 or 4 blocks from his door proves him guilty. That he picked up his revolver proves him guilty. His lies prove him guilty. Fleeing the scene proves him guilty. The fingerprints prove him guilty. That he was the only person on the 6th floor proves him guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Instead of quibbling over the exact dimensions of a package that neither Frazier or Randle had any reason to observe more than briefly the question to ask is…why would they lie? They had no axe to grind. They just saw a large, bulky package that was clearly considerably larger than his usual lunch packet. Why, completely out of left field, would Frazier have lied about Oswald claiming that it was curtain rods? And following from that…..why did he need cousin rods? And where did he get these curtain rods from? And why did he not mention them to anyone else? And where did they go?

The answers couldn’t be clearer.

[Abby Normal]

Im Not sure why conspiracy theorists discount oswald as a shooter. he was obviously one of tje shooters...why cant a conspiracy include oswald?!?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im Not sure why conspiracy theorists discount oswald as a shooter. he was obviously one of tje shooters...why cant a conspiracy include oswald?!?

Not convoluted enough I don’t think Abby.

[GBinOz]

Im Not sure why conspiracy theorists discount oswald as a shooter. he was obviously one of tje shooters...why cant a conspiracy include oswald?!?

Hi Abby,

I don't count myself as a conspiracy theorist, more of a facts analyst. I'm on the fence as to the extent of Oswald's conscious involvement, but I can't agree that he was obviously a shooter. The extent of his involvement is of less importance to me that the logistics of the assassination, the HOW. The other question is a different issue, the WHY, which is more open to speculation that the hard facts which show there were three or more shooters involved. When Oswald's rifle was tested it was found that three shims had to be inserted under the scope mount to enable it to be adjusted to target. It is possible to accurately shoot a rifle with unadjusted sights but only with a lot of practice with those actual sights, and Oswald didn't practise with this rifle at the range. That raises a question in my mind as to whether he could have been the actual shooter in the TSBD.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Like all conspiracy theorists you really appear to have an issue with Bugliosi. You’ll listen to idiots like Groden though.

On the trial…..remind me of the verdict again.

If Oswald was alive today and was put on trial there’s not a jury on the planet that would acquit him. As guilty as the Yorkshire Ripper was. Not a shred of doubt.

Eventually the world will tire of insane conspiracist lies and manipulations. Even the suggestion of corruption in the Warren Commission is madness. It’s fashionable these days to be a conspiracist opposing big bad government. Conspiracy theorists are sheep who don’t believe in errors or misinterpretation. Everything is sinister. It’s a sad reflection on modern life that we have this dishonest bandwagon of an industry.

''If Oswald was alive today and was put on trial there’s not a jury on the planet that would acquit him. As guilty as the Yorkshire Ripper was. Not a shred of doubt.''




After this sentence, and these 4 words '' ' Not a shred of doubt , its hard to imagine why anyone would ever contemplate discussing any subject with you all Herlock seriously.

I dont think you really believe Oswald was a lone gunman at all , you merely you choose a side thats the oppisite to someone just so you can argue the point all day long.[well thats what it looks like to me anyway] Very sad if thats the case.

Now where is that picture of the other side of the Magic Bullet CE.399 displayed as evidence from the Warren Commission ? Also the 3 expert witnesss ''Fingerprint Evidence'' that appears on Page Number... ???? of the Warren Commission report that ties Oswald to the Rifle he supposidly fired at JFK ?

[GBinOz]

Instead of quibbling over the exact dimensions of a package that neither Frazier or Randle had any reason to observe more than briefly the question to ask is…why would they lie? They had no axe to grind. They just saw a large, bulky package that was clearly considerably larger than his usual lunch packet. Why, completely out of left field, would Frazier have lied about Oswald claiming that it was curtain rods? And following from that…..why did he need cousin rods? And where did he get these curtain rods from? And why did he not mention them to anyone else? And where did they go?

The answers couldn’t be clearer.

Why do you persist in this subterfuge. The witnesses weren't lying, but they didn't say what you are claiming that they said. I have already posted the transcript of the questioning by Ball of the witnesses which you seem to have refused to read. In summary, Frazier and Randle, each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. They determined this by how the package was being held, an experiment that can be performed by anyone, and an estimate of size. There is a lot of space between bigger than a lunch bag and a large bulky package. The paper supermarket bag I used to carry home our groceries would fit right in that range, and could be recycled to carry my lunch, but not my rifle.

The rest of your questions require speculation, and such speculation can be seen here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-curtain-rods

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do you persist in this subterfuge. The witnesses weren't lying, but they didn't say what you are claiming that they said. I have already posted the transcript of the questioning by Ball of the witnesses which you seem to have refused to read. In summary, Frazier and Randle, each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. They determined this by how the package was being held, an experiment that can be performed by anyone, and an estimate of size. There is a lot of space between bigger than a lunch bag and a large bulky package. The paper supermarket bag I used to carry home our groceries would fit right in that range, and could be recycled to carry my lunch, but not my rifle.

The rest of your questions require speculation, and such speculation can be seen here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-har...d-curtain-rods

Don’t accuse me of subterfuge George when you’re spewing out this infantile nonsense.

Both noticed a large bulky package - maybe they were some f****ng huge sandwiches or normal sized sandwiches in a huge package? The size is irrelevant because they were making estimates based on a brief look. It’s just nitpicking which is what conspiracy theory is.

Frazier saw Oswald’s lunch packet numerous times but on this occasion there was clearly something different about it. It was bigger. We know this because Frazier and Randle both tell us this. It cannot be clearer. For you to be correct you have to accuse Frazier of lying. There is no escaping this.

Frazier stated specifically, definitely and with absolutely no doubt, hesitation or question that Oswald told him that the package contained curtain rods (so maybe he took a huge baguette to work for a change?) So are you accusing Frazier of lying?

This one is black and white…..either Oswald lied or Frazier lied about the curtain rods. Sensible, reasoned, logical, common sense thinking suggested that Oswald was clearly lying but you’ll probably say that Frazier was lying despite having absolutely no motive for doing so.

Oswald lied….the package contained the rifle….the packaging was found with Oswald’s fingerprints on on the 6th floor. Take those bloody conspiracy goggles of just for once George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

''If Oswald was alive today and was put on trial there’s not a jury on the planet that would acquit him. As guilty as the Yorkshire Ripper was. Not a shred of doubt.''




After this sentence, and these 4 words '' ' Not a shred of doubt , its hard to imagine why anyone would ever contemplate discussing any subject with you all Herlock seriously.

Coming from a man who supports the disproven Knight drivel that’s hardly an insult.

I dont think you really believe Oswald was a lone gunman at all , you merely you choose a side thats the oppisite to someone just so you can argue the point all day long.[well thats what it looks like to me anyway] Very sad if thats the case.

Dont tell me what I think. You’re pathetic.

Now where is that picture of the other side of the Magic Bullet CE.399 displayed as evidence from the Warren Commission ? Also the 3 expert witnesss ''Fingerprint Evidence'' that appears on Page Number... ???? of the Warren Commission report that ties Oswald to the Rifle he supposidly fired at JFK ?

From the National Archives. The not pristine bullet. I’m not going to keep spoonfeeding you information when all that you want to hear is lame, laughable conspiracist crap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m tired of listening to the downright silliness that’s being posted on here by posters that will swallow absolutely any old guff created by conspiracists loonies. I’m also sick to the back teeth of you two constantly expecting me to answer question when you both steadfastly refuse to respond to my points or answer my questions. It’s a one way show on this thread and it smacks of cowardice. I’m expected to read this, and watch this when you to exhibit textbook bias by point blank refusing to read anything that isn’t written by some witless, nothing-better-to-do conspiracy fantasist.

Anyone who thinks that……. someone wanting the President dead wouldn’t want a simple plan, with as few as possible involved, with as little as possible that could go wrong in favour of framing a man who acted about as guilty as possible, for whom they had to falsify a connection to purchasing two guns, for whom they had to falsify fingerprints, falsify ballistic records, falsify the medical records, have control over the public as witness (with or without cameras) control the Doctors at the hospital, alter wounds, gather together a whole Commission of highly respected men and get them to treasonable falsify a report and then hope that not one single one of these 100’s of people veers from the script or speaks out of line……is little short of deranged.

Not a chance. No one would get involved in a conspiracy involving so many agencies and with so many people either directly or indirectly involved. If you really believe in that then I despair for the human race. All I can say is……GROW UP.

[FISHY1118]

From the National Archives. The not pristine bullet. I’m not going to keep spoonfeeding you information when all that you want to hear is lame, laughable conspiracist crap.

Your kidding right ? You tell him George, i cant waste time with with silly magic bullet theory that has so clearly been proven to be nonsense. And is that a personal insult i see there Herlock?, hmmmmmm. Be careful ,you know the rules do it again and you just might find yourself getting chucked off here real quick, even if i have to go too . So keeep your insults to yourself .

[FISHY1118]

I’m tired of listening to the downright silliness that’s being posted on here by posters that will swallow absolutely any old guff created by conspiracists loonies. I’m also sick to the back teeth of you two constantly expecting me to answer question when you both steadfastly refuse to respond to my points or answer my questions. It’s a one way show on this thread and it smacks of cowardice. I’m expected to read this, and watch this when you to exhibit textbook bias by point blank refusing to read anything that isn’t written by some witless, nothing-better-to-do conspiracy fantasist.

Anyone who thinks that……. someone wanting the President dead wouldn’t want a simple plan, with as few as possible involved, with as little as possible that could go wrong in favour of framing a man who acted about as guilty as possible, for whom they had to falsify a connection to purchasing two guns, for whom they had to falsify fingerprints, falsify ballistic records, falsify the medical records, have control over the public as witness (with or without cameras) control the Doctors at the hospital, alter wounds, gather together a whole Commission of highly respected men and get them to treasonable falsify a report and then hope that not one single one of these 100’s of people veers from the script or speaks out of line……is little short of deranged.

Not a chance. No one would get involved in a conspiracy involving so many agencies and with so many people either directly or indirectly involved. If you really believe in that then I despair for the human race. All I can say is……GROW UP.

This is what a desperate post looks like when all else fails . When the evidence contradicts your arguement simply apply the Audrey Bell rule

1 Everyboby lied

2 They dont exist

3 There a bunch of morons

That Warren Commission succeeded in convincining the weak ,narrow minded , uneducated masses, a loan gunman killed the president when the amount of contradiory evidence suggest otherwise . And the happy masses lapped it up because thats what they were told .