JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Post 549 , 555 , I must of continually missed these answers, can you show me the post for them ?

Post # 549 is you whining about my use of the word ‘pathetic.’

Post #555 - I wasn’t dodging. I was pointing out that Humes absolute certainty about the wounds to Kennedy negate the observations of a nurse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course my post #505 where I asked for proof of the identity of this witness:
Like the witness who was in the car park area who saw no one behind the fence.

We are castigated for not answering endlessly repetitive speculations but when challenged on one of a myriad of unsubstantiated claims, no answer is the stern reply. It is easy to make unsubstantiated claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. Bugliosi 101.

Here we go again George……..you respond to a big fat ZERO of my posts, but it’s more questions in the game of Ask Herlock. It wasn’t in Bugliosi btw. To be honest I can’t recall where I got it from as I cut and pasted it into Notes.



“Jim Towner, a former military man immediately recognized what his wife described as ‘firecrackers’ as gunshots. He heard three shots which he thought came from the Book Depository. He followed a crowd of spectators to the picket fence and spoke to a black man wearing a white uniform standing on the back of a Pullman dining car. It was Carl Desroe. Desroe responded to questions from the crowd asking if he had observed anyone in the vicinity. “No sir” Desroe said, “I haven’t seen anybody back here and I’ve been back here watching the whole thing.”

[jmenges]

Please remember that if your post contains numerous external links it will be flagged for moderation approval. When approved it will appear in the thread at the point the poster intended. So this might cause it to be missed by your fellow members.

On topic- Oswald did not shoot JFK. Oswald did not shoot at General Walker. Oswald was not lying to us when he said he was a patsy.

JM

See George’s post @ 581 for new content added to the thread after moderator approval.

JM

[cobalt]

HS may be correct in his belief that LHO was the lone assassin. But in a case which he admits is very complex I cannot understand his absolute certainty on the issue, which extends to him denigrating anyone who disagrees with him. I haven’t been able to get Bugliosi’s book but the same certainty seems to exist in Bugliosi presentation of the case.

I have taken on board some of HS’s points about the clutter of assassins elbowing each other out of the way on the 6^th floor with various Carcanos and Mausers; and also why the key ‘patsy’ Oswald was allowed to roam around before and after the assassination.

However I think he has to accept that there was a conspiracy of some sort surrounding Oswald, particularly in Mexico City prior to the assassination. That does not mean that the assassination itself was directly linked to this conspiracy but it is a detail which can hardly be ignored.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im not jumping through hoops for a man who has point blank refused to respond or address any of he points that I’ve made. Nothing of the above; not a single point refutes what happened that day.

Frazier and Randle saw Oswald with a package which was clearly larger than his usual lunch pack. (From their brief looks they obviously made an error of judgments as to its length and Frazier did not, as you have implied, say that there was no tape) only that he didn’t see any.

Im not prepared to discus the fingerprint evidence any longer. Oswald’s prints were on the packaging.

You mistake witness testimony for facts and like the true conspiracy theorist you only highlight the witnesses that you feel can either support your point or that their testimony can be manipulated into appearing that way.

Ill repeat….

HE CHANGED HIS DAY SOLELY ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.
HE REFUSES TO DISCUS KENNEDY’S VISIT WITH HIS WIFE.
HE LEFT HIS WEDDING RING AND $170.
HE TAKES A PACKAGE CONSIDERABLY LARGER THAN HIS USUAL LUNCH PACKET.
HE LIES ABOUT CURTAIN RODS, CONFIRMED BY FRAZIE AND RANDLE (who weren’t CIA plants or Illuminati slaves)
HE DASHED INTO THE TSBD FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.
HE THEN PRETENDS THAT HE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT KENNEDY’S VISIT.
HE LIES ABOUT EATING LUCH WITH JARMAN.
HE TELLS GIVENS AT 11.55 THAT HE’S STAYING ON THE 6TH FLOOR.
HE FLEES THE SCENE.
HE GETS DROPPED BLOCKS FROM HIS ROOMING HOUSE.
HE PICKS UP HIS GUN.
HE SHOOTS TIPPIT.
HE PULLS THE SAME GUN IN THE CINEMA.
HE NEVER MENTIONS BEING A PART OF A CONSPIRACY.
THE WARREN COMMISSIONS REPORT PRONOUNCED HIM GUILTY.
ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE WC WAS CORRUPT IS MORONIC. DID THEY MAKE ERRORS? OF COURSE THEY DID.

100% guilty. Not a shred of doubt.

I’ve had enough of this now George. You and Fishy and Cobalt are apparently exempt from any requirements to respond. It’s all one way traffic. Anyone interested in this case and who hasn’t read Bugliosi but just snipes and insults whilst cowering behind conspiracist idiots like Groden really infant worth responding to. You’re refusal to read any non-conspiracy books scream as loudly as can be about your blinkers approach. At least I can say that I’ve looked at both sides.

Carry on down the rabbit-hole. 60 years on, untold files released, 100’s of assassins named, every authority group in the world accused except the Women’s Institute, theories that come from people who should be in a padded cell…..and not one single piece of evidence that shows a conspiracy.

Because there wasn’t one. And you wonder why conspiracy theorists have a bad name? Not bad enough imo.

I don’t understand the ‘unapproved’ status of my response.

[Aethelwulf]

I don’t understand the ‘unapproved’ status of my response.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people on here share your view but can't be a***d to get into such a daft argument. I suspect GB and Fishy are busy filling in their forms to sign up to Qanon and fake moon landing conspiracies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS may be correct in his belief that LHO was the lone assassin. But in a case which he admits is very complex I cannot understand his absolute certainty on the issue, which extends to him denigrating anyone who disagrees with him. I haven’t been able to get Bugliosi’s book but the same certainty seems to exist in Bugliosi presentation of the case.

I have taken on board some of HS’s points about the clutter of assassins elbowing each other out of the way on the 6^th floor with various Carcanos and Mausers; and also why the key ‘patsy’ Oswald was allowed to roam around before and after the assassination.

However I think he has to accept that there was a conspiracy of some sort surrounding Oswald, particularly in Mexico City prior to the assassination. That does not mean that the assassination itself was directly linked to this conspiracy but it is a detail which can hardly be ignored.

Im no more denigrating others than others have ‘denigrated’ me Cobalt. Being labelled ‘schizophrenic’ his hardly polite conversation. Not just the tone but the wording of some of the posts by George and Fishy have claimed that I’m being less than honest in my approach. Is there one rule for others?

My main issue are twofold. That I’ve been absolutely bombarded with questions from 3 posters. The majority of which I’ve responded to at length if I could (although I’m not an encyclopaedia of JFK minutiae.) So it’s taken a good deal of time to do some reading up and I really didn’t want to get back into reading about the case. But when I’ve asked numerous questions or made points they get completely ignored or dismissed in a sentence. So is the a discussion thread or is it an online version of Mastermind with me permanently in the black chair? This is what’s irritating.

My certainty that Oswald wasn’t part of any opinion is simply my own opinion. Many people take the same position and many don’t but it appears that the Lone Gunman theory is an unacceptable opinion hence the derision. I’m only surprised that I haven’t been accused of being Oswaldphobic.

My opinion is a very simple one in that no conspirators with even the tiniest modicum of intelligence would ignore plans that were simpler, more effective, easier to carry out, minimal people in the know and immeasurably less risky with such colossal ramifications if discovered in favour of a plan involving a fall guy who could be examined in minute detail and who only needed one person seeing him away from the 6th floor at the time of the shots in a building full of people and who was left roaming around to get arrested; with ballistics evidence that required falsification because they decided to use more than one gunman for some inexplicable reason; with medical evidence that required falsification to the extent of tampering with wounds without anyone not in the know finding out; involving 100’s of witness many of whom were entirely hostile as far as a conspiracy goes, and many of whom had cameras and cine cameras to accidentally take just one photograph of a gunman who wasn’t supposed to have been seen. A conspiracy that would have required the complicity of the police, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the medical profession, the Government (or elements within it) various witnesses and the entire Warren Commission and it’s counsels and investigators. And after all of this and after 60 years not one bit of proof of a conspiracy has surfaced. Yet we keep quibbling about whether or not 2 people could have underestimated the length of a package that they both saw briefly! We’ve had all the package-based quibbling but notice one thing Cobalt - not one poster has addressed the absolute howler of the ‘curtain rods’ story. So….do you, George and Fishy believe that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie May Randle lied about Oswald telling Frazier about the curtain rods (twice)? And if so….why the hell would they? Frazier stuck to his story absolutely when Bugliosi (apologies for mentioning the forbidden name) interviewed him in 1986 when he also admitted that the package might have been longer than he’d thought.)

If they didn’t lie (and I’d certainly say that they didn’t) then Le Harvey Oswald did lie. And why would an innocent man lie about something like that?

I just don’t know why people ignore the sheer, unmitigated unlikeliness of it all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people on here share your view but can't be a***d to get into such a daft argument. I suspect GB and Fishy are busy filling in their forms to sign up to Qanon and fake moon landing conspiracies.

It’s my own fault for getting drawn in Wulf.

[caz]

Any reason to assume he'd be holding a rifle by it's barrel? If he's holding the rifle as most would hold a rifle it's natural to hold it at an angle, making sure it does not scrape along the ground. If the butt of a rifle were held tightly between the armpit I assume it could be held in such a manner for a brief time at least without falling backwards. I'm assuming this as I have never attempted to inconspicuously hold a rifle in such a manner. I do think it very strange that of all the days Oswald carried a package in the rough shape of a rifle to work it just happened to be the same day the President was assassinated yards away from Oswald's place of work. Do you at least agree something appears to have been going on there? Whoever decided Oswald was to be the patsy was very fortunate Oswald just happened to take packaged curtain rods into work that very same day.

Not to mention all the other things Oswald chose to do or not do that day, if his movements and whereabouts were not being carefully controlled and monitored at every turn by shadowy conspirators, whose plan was to set up this particular individual as a lone assassin, without him having the least clue about it until after the fatal shot was fired by someone else.

How in heaven's name could anyone have expected all this to go to plan in practice, and how in heaven's name could they have known if it had worked or not in the event, unless they had cameras everywhere for the duration, including up Oswald's arse, to make sure he remained ripe for setting up from start to finish?

Has anyone tried a detailed reconstruction of this remarkable feat of manipulation, of a man chosen beforehand, who didn't know he was being manipulated or what he was participating in? What super powers did these people have? A remote control that worked on humans?

Love,

Caz
X

[jmenges]

I don’t understand the ‘unapproved’ status of my response.

You fully quoted the same exact post containing a gazillion external links that I just said was sent to the moderator queue because of said gazillion links.
You Quoting it -with the gazillion links- then sent your response to back to the same queue I just got the original post out of.

No conspiracy- just tired of the nonsense.

JM

[jmenges]

Attention-
If a post is unapproved by the system due to the sheer volume of external links it contains, when it is eventually approved- and you fully quote it- your post will then become “unapproved” by the system due to the same external link issue.
Keep that in mind.
When in doubt use the edit function.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

You fully quoted the same exact post containing a gazillion external links that I just said was sent to the moderator queue because of said gazillion links.
You Quoting it -with the gazillion links- then sent your response to back to the same queue I just got the original post out of.

No conspiracy- just tired of the nonsense.

JM

No problem. I just didn’t understand the tech bit.

[jason_c]

Not to mention all the other things Oswald chose to do or not do that day, if his movements and whereabouts were not being carefully controlled and monitored at every turn by shadowy conspirators, whose plan was to set up this particular individual as a lone assassin, without him having the least clue about it until after the fatal shot was fired by someone else.

How in heaven's name could anyone have expected all this to go to plan in practice, and how in heaven's name could they have known if it had worked or not in the event, unless they had cameras everywhere for the duration, including up Oswald's arse, to make sure he remained ripe for setting up from start to finish?

Has anyone tried a detailed reconstruction of this remarkable feat of manipulation, of a man chosen beforehand, who didn't know he was being manipulated or what he was participating in? What super powers did these people have? A remote control that worked on humans?

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah, not even getting into the Officer Tippit murder the conspirators were fortunate that Oswald decided to do a runner from his place of work at about the time of the assassination. I'm sure some folk in the area decided not to return to work after the shooting but Oswald being one of them was a massive stroke of luck. And he just happened to bring curtain rods to work that day too.

[GBinOz]

Here we go again George……..you respond to a big fat ZERO of my posts, but


it’s more questions in the game of Ask Herlock. It wasn’t in Bugliosi btw. To be honest I can’t recall where I got it from as I cut and pasted it into Notes.

“Jim Towner, a former military man immediately recognized what his wife described as ‘firecrackers’ as gunshots. He heard three shots which he thought came from the Book Depository. He followed a crowd of spectators to the picket fence and spoke to a black man wearing a white uniform standing on the back of a Pullman dining car. It was Carl Desroe. Desroe responded to questions from the crowd asking if he had observed anyone in the vicinity. “No sir” Desroe said, “I haven’t seen anybody back here and I’ve been back here watching the whole thing.”

"You mistake witness testimony for facts" - Sir HS

I don't mistake your posts for facts.

[GBinOz]

You fully quoted the same exact post containing a gazillion external links that I just said was sent to the moderator queue because of said gazillion links.
You Quoting it -with the gazillion links- then sent your response to back to the same queue I just got the original post out of.

No conspiracy- just tired of the nonsense.

JM

Sorry for your trouble JM. I didn't realise you had to check external links. I thought the "unapproved" was some sort of reference to the original source, hence my post 582 complying with their requirement. I'll be more careful in the future.

Cheers, George