JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

That’s the issue. You find a quote that you like and immediately believe it.

Conspiracy theorists are the worlds most gullible people.

Dont look now , but we have a winner again .

1 jesse curry lied

2 jesse curry didnt exist

3 jesse curry is a stark raving lunatic

Apoligist always answer yes

[cobalt]

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 .

I don't think that is fair on the 'masses.' Has the Warren Commission ever commanded majority support within the USA? I knew a couple of journalists who worked in the USA at the time (one later interviewed Nixon) and they both told me there was great scepticism about the lone gunman theory from the moment Oswald was executed inside Dallas County jail. Reading HS comments he seems to suggest the WC had wide support and that was later eroded by a bunch of conspiracy crackpots. From what I have read and been told the suspicion of conspiracy was widely held right from the beginning, and the WC report did little to alter that.

Outside the USA the assumption for the last 60 odd years has been that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell voiced this opinion very clearly right from the start in a very concise essay.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dont look now , but we have a winner again .

1 jesse curry lied

2 jesse curry didnt exist

3 jesse curry is a stark raving lunatic

Apoligist always answer yes

Number 3.

And not as straight forward as the similar point that I made about Frazier and Randle…..which you ducked….as usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Show me where humes saw the bullet bell saw ? You dodged the question

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions so I’m not going to continue answering yours.

Humes opinion trumps Bell’s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

I don't think that is fair on the 'masses.' Has the Warren Commission ever commanded majority support within the USA? I knew a couple of journalists who worked in the USA at the time (one later interviewed Nixon) and they both told me there was great scepticism about the lone gunman theory from the moment Oswald was executed inside Dallas County jail. Reading HS comments he seems to suggest the WC had wide support and that was later eroded by a bunch of conspiracy crackpots. From what I have read and been told the suspicion of conspiracy was widely held right from the beginning, and the WC report did little to alter that.

Outside the USA the assumption for the last 60 odd years has been that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell voiced this opinion very clearly right from the start in a very concise essay.

After the assassination there were a huge amount of witnesses, experts and officials involved either closely or tangentially. Errors, disagreements and contradictions naturally occurred. They happen even in the Ripper case so magnify it by 500 or a 1000 and you have fertile ground for conspiracists.

Then you get people who can’t accept this who start trying to knit together more and more elaborate conspiracies. Factor in the political and world situation; factor in the tendency of people to see the world being controlled by secret cabals; factor in the fact that human beings love a plot; factor in that people love to think that they’ve solved a problem; factor in that people love to believe that they can see and understand things that the average man doesn’t…….and what do you get? Obsessive, blinkered conspiracy theorists. It’s a game; a bandwagon. They’ve created their own industry.

All that we need to do is to ask how likely it would be for any group of people to studiously avoid a simple, virtually risk-free plan for an assassination in favour of a plan where they have to go to ridiculous and insanely risky lengths to set up an innocent man (when no fall guy was needed) A plan which they knew would have involved 100’s of witnesses (some with cameras) A plan where they had to falsify medical and ballistic evidence. A plan where they had to set up a corrupt commission.

We don’t need to study this case. We just need to ask the above. How likely would that have been? On what planet would even the most moderately intelligent person have even considered this for a single second? The answer is simple and obvious. They just wouldn’t have. Not a single, remote chance. It would have being suicidally moronic. There was no conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Oswald did it. It really should be case closed.

[cobalt]

There had to be a fall guy. How could the narrative of ‘Mystery Sniper kills US President’ ever have been palatable? The conspirators chose an exceptionally good fall guy in Oswald given his track record.

Jesse Curry, LBJ, Governor Connally and even J. Edgar Hoover were all to some extent believers in a conspiracy. Hoover was aware of Oswald being impersonated as early as 1960, and of course being impersonated in Mexico City just over a month before the assassination. So there was a conspiracy of some sort going on, and it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that this conspiracy was connected to the events of 22 November 1963 given that Lee Harvey Oswald was somewhere at the centre of these events.

HS makes valid points about how snipers could have eluded discovery after the shooting and how any conspirators would surely have kept a tighter grip on Oswald’s movements in the TSBD had he been the ‘patsy.’ These are areas that those who believe in a conspiracy must address. But I don’t think he fully appreciates the nature of political power and how it controls narratives. This particularly applies to evidence from vulnerable witnesses such as teenager Buell Frazier (accused of being Oswald’s ally in his first interviews) and Marina Oswald.

I'm unclear why HS comes on to a debating forum to announce that we don't need to study this case and it should be case closed. What harm can come from free discussion? If a conspiracy argument is weak then surely it will be judged accordingly. Ditto for the WC orthodoxy.

[caz]

I actually posted this around an hour ago on the wrong thread….



And hopefully my final post tonight in the battle against madness. The Neely Street photograph showing Oswald holding the rifle and carrying a revolver. Yes, Neely Street, the only address that Oswald omitted when asked about the places he’d lived. When he actually falsely extended by 3 months his occupation at his address before Neely Street so that it could be expunged from the records.

Conspiracy theorists led by people like Groden try and claim ‘fake.’ It’s worth noting that Robert Blakey, a top Notre Dame law professor and Chief Counsel and Director of the HSCA, said in the National Enquirer that Groden had lied about his credentials and that “Groden’s ability to interpret photographs is nil.” The same Groden who was utterly discredited at the OJ Simpson trial. The same Groden who Fishy quoted heavily.

The photographs were sent to top labs at Stanford University, the University of Southern California and the Rochester Institute of Technology. All of whom verified them as genuine. The conspiracists still yell ‘fake.’ Oswald’s friend Michael Paine said that he’d seen one of the photos as early as April 1963 (some pre-planning there for the conspiracists) Marina Oswald said that she remembered taking the photos but she couldn’t recall how many she’d taken though.

In 1967 as part of the CBS TV special (the one where the riflemen recreated an beat Oswald’s performance with the rifle) went to the backyard of 214 Neely Street to see if a replica of the photos could be achieved. In the photo that they took the shadows fell in exactly the same way as in the Oswald photo. (They still yell fake!)

Then, to cap it off, in 1977 a copy of one the the photos was found in the possessions of Oswald’s friend and mentor George DeMohrenschildt. On the back we’re the words “To my friend George from Lee Oswald.” The handwriting was checked by a HSCA expert who pronounced it genuine.

You would think that there would come a time when these increasingly hollow and desperate cries of “fake” would stop, but on they go.

…….

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. No disputed medical evidence. No disputed ballistics evidence. No questions about the assassin and his past.Very few in the know reducing the risk of someone blabbing.Or

B) You find an allegedly not very good shot and equip him with an allegedly not very good rifle. To do this you go to the trouble of laying a trail of purchase to a store in Chicago to a name which is on several cards in the possession of the man that you yourself selected. Then you leave yourself the problem of explaining away his strange behaviour and lies before the assassination and you let him wonder around the streets to get arrested before getting himself blamed for the murder of a police officer. Then you parade what is allegedly the wrong type of rifle on national TV. You put a gunman on the Knoll in front of a large car park and with the public standing feet away in front and all around the Plaza you have people with still and movie cameras. Not only do you not mind the risk of your man being seen or photographed but you introduce the need to cover up the medical and ballistics findings which means having control over dozens if not hundreds of people. Then you gather together some of the most respected men in the country and get them to take part in a fraudulent and treasonable investigation confident that none of them will break ranks and that none of the investigators might let something slip.



How the hell can anyone even begin to believe this? 60 years of utter fantasy. Embarrassing nonsense

It's all a bit arse about face, Herlock. If the evidence really does point clearly to a conspiracy, as we are asked to believe, then it was so utterly incompetent that the conspirators managed to clear Oswald of the deed, while attempting to set him up for it, and only ended up incriminating themselves. Had Oswald survived, and disappeared to adopt a new identity, he could not have been better pleased with the result.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

There had to be a fall guy. How could the narrative of ‘Mystery Sniper kills US President’ ever have been palatable? The conspirators chose an exceptionally good fall guy in Oswald given his track record.

Jesse Curry, LBJ, Governor Connally and even J. Edgar Hoover were all to some extent believers in a conspiracy. Hoover was aware of Oswald being impersonated as early as 1960, and of course being impersonated in Mexico City just over a month before the assassination. So there was a conspiracy of some sort going on, and it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that this conspiracy was connected to the events of 22 November 1963 given that Lee Harvey Oswald was somewhere at the centre of these events.

HS makes valid points about how snipers could have eluded discovery after the shooting and how any conspirators would surely have kept a tighter grip on Oswald’s movements in the TSBD had he been the ‘patsy.’ These are areas that those who believe in a conspiracy must address. But I don’t think he fully appreciates the nature of political power and how it controls narratives. This particularly applies to evidence from vulnerable witnesses such as teenager Buell Frazier (accused of being Oswald’s ally in his first interviews) and Marina Oswald.

I'm unclear why HS comes on to a debating forum to announce that we don't need to study this case and it should be case closed. What harm can come from free discussion? If a conspiracy argument is weak then surely it will be judged accordingly. Ditto for the WC orthodoxy.

I don’t think that there needed to be a fall guy at all though Cobalt. It created massively more issues than it solved. If someone wanted Kennedy dead (and of course there were people and groups who would have shed no tears) then it would have been an undertaking requiring real thought. Even when undertaking something like bank robbery those involved naturally look to formulating a plan with as few people as possible in-the-know and with as few things as possible that can go wrong. So how much more vital would these requirements have been for the assassination of the world’s most powerful man? We should try and imagine the ramifications if it was shown that the CIA or the FBI or the Vice President were found to have been involved? For example, would Lyndon Johnson have risked just one disgruntled conspirator going to the Press with “I have evidence that the Vice President was a part of the decision to kill Kennedy?” No matter what the alleged benefits of a dead Kennedy who would have taken such a massive risk?

For any group to have set up Oswald as fall guy then we have to consider that he was either involved but fired no shots or that he was completely uninvolved. It’s remembering here that George suggested that after the assassination Oswald realised that he’d been set up (explains his post-assassination behaviour)

So if Oswald just took the gun to the TSBD but didn’t shoot but knew what was going to happen- we would have a stranger entering and exiting the BD completely unseen (especially considering that Marrion Baker was in the building around 90 seconds after the shots and he ran into Oswald with the building manager, how could a stranger have got passed that?), he then sets up and fires the gun on a floor which there was no way that he could have known would have been empty and in a spot where workers on the floor below heard the shots above them and the shells being ejected onto the floor. He was also almost mind-blowingly fortunate that Oswald did his best to incriminate himself with his behaviour prior to the assassination and post assassination and yet at no point did he reveal that he was merely a part of the plot.

If Oswald was completely innocent then we not only have a complete stranger entering and exiting the TSBD unseen but he enters it carrying a large package containing a rifle. A rifle that they ordered by forging Oswald’s handwriting after somehow persuading him to carry cards in his wallet with the name of the non-existent person that bought the guns. Then that had to somehow get Oswald’s prints onto the gun including in a location where only a person disassembling the gun could have. Then they insure that Oswald fails a paraffin test. Prior to that they have forged 4 photographs of Oswald holding both guns (taken by his wife) at an address that Oswald tried to deny living at. One of those photos, found in 1977, had a note in Oswald’s handwriting on the back. Photographs that were tested a various top labs who proclaimed them genuine. Then the innocent Oswald, knowing nothing about an assassination, suddenly assumes that he’s going to get the blame so he flees, taking a convoluted journey back to his room. He then takes a route which conveniently passes a police officer where the scene is set for it to be made to look like he shot the man. The witnesses are all primed to lie but they hope that no one asks “how did someone else shoot Tippit with the gun that Oswald had in his possession on arrest.

I could go on and on about the billion to one likelihood of conspirators being able to control or negate any hostile witness, control or negate the medical evidence, control or negate the ballistics evidence and then, to top it off, they find 7 men of the highest reputation to take part in a treasonable investigation along with 26 other equally corrupt members.


How can anyone believe this? How can people who believe this or variants of it sit there and smugly claim that those who favour a lone gunman are somehow delusion? This madness has snowballed for years that ‘conspiracy’ has become entrenched in people’s minds. So entrenched that they just can’t bring themselves to step off the bandwagon - even to the extent (seen on here) that people even refuse to read anything that takes an opposing view to theirs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's all a bit arse about face, Herlock. If the evidence really does point clearly to a conspiracy, as we are asked to believe, then it was so utterly incompetent that the conspirators managed to clear Oswald of the deed, while attempting to set him up for it, and only ended up incriminating themselves. Had Oswald survived, and disappeared to adopt a new identity, he could not have been better pleased with the result.

Love,

Caz
X

The evidence points clearly away from a conspiracy though Caz. Yes, there is much minutiae to nitpick over with numerous points being disputed but CT’s try and give the impression that because one conspiracy theorist claims to have the definitive answer to a point then it’s solved but it’s not the case. So even if we’re at neutral on the details (and we’re not) the sheer mind blowing, glaring unlikeliness should tip the nance heavily and conclusively imo.

Im really tiring of this subject I escaped it once….I can do it again

[caz]

Both witnesses’ descriptions are consistent with a package that contained either curtain rods or Oswald’s lunch. Frazier and Randle were emphatic that the package was nowhere near long enough to have contained the rifle.

So the package either contained rods for very small curtains, or a very long peanut butter baguette?

Neither sounds very digestible to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What I do not understand about this is 'descriptions are consistent with a package that contained curtain rods or Oswald's lunch'. This to me does not make sense. It's virtually impossible to get these two types of packages mixed up. Curtain rods are curtain rod length, a parcel containing lunch is the size of a small Tupperware container. One account is very wrong. Also, I am in no way an expert on rifles or curtain rods. However, I strongly suspect if either a rifle or curtain rods were held inside a package they could easily be confused for each other to the casual observer. The casual observer being a rather important point here. It's not as if we are insisting the witness is confusing a package containing curtain rods with a package the size of a match box.

Bingo.

If the package was the right shape and size to have contained a packed lunch, it could hardly have been mistaken by anyone for a pack of curtain rods. Oswald would have had no reason to lie if it looked like his lunch, whether the contents were edible or not. But a man carrying a rifle would have needed to have a plausible explanation ready, and curtain rods would be a sight more credible than a cheeseburger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bingo.

If the package was the right shape and size to have contained a packed lunch, it could hardly have been mistaken by anyone for a pack of curtain rods. Oswald would have had no reason to lie if it looked like his lunch, whether the contents were edible or not. But a man carrying a rifle would have needed to have a plausible explanation ready, and curtain rods would be a sight more credible than a cheeseburger.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly Caz. And what reason did Buell Wesley Frazier have to lie about this? Oswald told Frazier on the day before the assassination that he was collecting some curtain rods (which he provably wasn’t) Frazier relayed this to his sister who confirmed it in front of the Warren Commission. Oswald also told him that the package was curtain rods next morning. He took the package to the TSBD. No one at the TSBD saw Oswald eating any lunch, in fact Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with Junior Jarman and another man but both said that this wasn’t true. When Oswald left the building he had no package with him and no curtain rods were found in the building. Wrapping paper was found though and it had Oswald’s prints on it. And on the morning that he left for work he left his wedding ring and $170 telling Marina to get whatever the kids needed (Oswald was a notorious skinflint (and a wife-beater for good measure) who she usually had to badger for even the tiniest of amounts.

And as you say Caz, when asked why didn’t he just say “yes it was my lunchbox with some fruit but the only bag available was a bigger one than I normally used.” Why lie?

The man couldn’t have been guiltier if he’d have danced around Dealey Plaza singing “whoopie, I just shot the President.” Although…conspiracy theorists would still have accused the FBI of drugging him and the CIA of planting a Ventriloquist behind the picket fence.

[GBinOz]

So the package either contained rods for very small curtains, or a very long peanut butter baguette?

Neither sounds very digestible to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Ahh, humour. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Why are sandwiches and curtain rods of any relevance? The point is that it doesn't matter whether the package was the right or wrong size for either. The point is that both witnesses stated that the package was no where near long enough to contain a rifle.

Ruth Paine’s garage, from which he is supposed to have retrieved the rifle, did contain curtain rods that were about the right size to fit in the bag described by Frazier and Randle. Against this, there is no record of any curtain rods having been discovered in the TSBD, and Ruth Paine claimed that no curtain rods were missing (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.9, pp.424f), although her husband Michael was less sure (ibid., p.461).

[Doctored Whatsit]

Ahh, humour. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Why are sandwiches and curtain rods of any relevance? The point is that it doesn't matter whether the package was the right or wrong size for either. The point is that both witnesses stated that the package was no where near long enough to contain a rifle.

Ruth Paine’s garage, from which he is supposed to have retrieved the rifle, did contain curtain rods that were about the right size to fit in the bag described by Frazier and Randle. Against this, there is no record of any curtain rods having been discovered in the TSBD, and Ruth Paine claimed that no curtain rods were missing (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.9, pp.424f), although her husband Michael was less sure (ibid., p.461).

In view of the fact that no curtain rods were found, and apparently not taken anyway, I think it is reasonable to assume that Oswald was lying. He did take his rifle, and that was found, it seems, and so the fact that it was what he was carrying in the package must be considered likely.

As for the witnesses, do we know that they were experienced in recognising the length of an unassembled rifle? It seems to me that the witnesses were under extreme pressure, knowing that Oswald appeared to have murdered Kennedy with his rifle, and that therefore the package was probably a rifle and not curtain rods. If they said that the package didn't appear to be curtain rods, but something bigger, then they were opening the door for potentially severe criticism - then why didn't you do something? The President is dead because you didn't say anything ... Oops, they had to say the package looked like it might have been curtain rods, the alternative was unacceptable, was it not?

[cobalt]

Never mind the quality, feel the width seems to be HS’s contribution.

Conspiracy took place in Mexico City but HS has never dealt with this any more than Bugliosi wished to do in his TV courtroom hearing. It is a very important point. If Oswald was indeed in Mexico City as Bugliosi claimed, ‘sheep dipping’ himself by visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies, then why on earth was it necessary for anyone to impersonate him? He was doing a damn good job all on his own. Why was this necessary? Why was someone impersonating the so called ‘no mark’ Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City little more than a month before the assassination?

Why are people like Jesse Curry, LBJ, Governor Connally, J. Edgar Hoover and Bertrand Russell who suspected a conspiracy ‘moronic’ whilst HS is not? They all have a public record of achievement which I suspect he cannot match. Could it be that the accuser is revealing more of himself than the accused?