JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

Im no more denigrating others than others have ‘denigrated’ me Cobalt. Being labelled ‘schizophrenic’ his hardly polite conversation.
How polite are your labels: loonies, cowardice, deranged, cowering and infantile ??
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?

If you post spurious statements you should be aware that they may be fact checked. The rule is that opinions are not facts, and endless repetitions do not constitute valid debate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"You mistake witness testimony for facts" - Sir HS

I don't mistake your posts for facts.

]

As in other threads your “Mr Nice Guy Poster” persona is slipping George. A couple of poster pointed this out to me a while ago but I stupidly ignored them. Never open insults of course, just an accumulation of snide ones.

I posted that quote, with a full admittance that I couldn’t recall where it came from except that it wasn’t from Bugliosi. And very obviously because I didn’t know where it came from I had no way of verifying it’s validity. I just posted it because you asked for it. If he wasn’t a reliable witness then fine but then again I don’t just take the word of one quote that dismisses it. Maybe it’s crap, maybe there’s more to it?

Feel free to make a snide point about it if you want to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you post spurious statements you should be aware that they may be fact checked. The rule is that opinions are not facts, and endless repetitions do not constitute valid debate.

Debate is a two-way thing which you have proven not to be interested in. I’m not going to keep responding to your points and questions when you refuse to respond to mine.

Don’t talk about facts when what you really mean is what other CT’s tell you.

So are you willing to call Frazier and Randle liars? Consult the CT’s on the forums first of course.

[jmenges]

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

Thanks.
It’s annoying that the software platform automatically flags those types of posts as suspicious. But it’s for everyone’s protection.

JM

[cobalt]

HS has still been reluctant to address the issue of Oswald being impersonated in Mexico City. Why was this necessary since, according to Bugliosi, Oswald was doing a sterling job of associating himself with the two most hostile countries known to the USA at that time: USSR and Cuba. The lone gunman was doing a great job, so why on God's earth was it necessary to impersonate him? He was doing fine on his own.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

HS has still been reluctant to address the issue of Oswald being impersonated in Mexico City. Why was this necessary since, according to Bugliosi, Oswald was doing a sterling job of associating himself with the two most hostile countries known to the USA at that time: USSR and Cuba. The lone gunman was doing a great job, so why on God's earth was it necessary to impersonate him? He was doing fine on his own.

Hi all,

I genuinely know nothing about this, but I must admit it's piqued my curiosity. Can someone put up a link or two to any articles on this particular matter?

Cheers.

[FISHY1118]

The single bullet theory is proven and has been recreated by computer graphics. It’s not even worth discussing. The Allies won WW2, William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, King John signed Magna Carta and Kennedy and Connally were hit be the same bullet. No further debate required.

Let me guess it also came out in pristine condition , wake up , you can't have a bullet do all that damage to both Kennedy and Connally and remain in its near original condition!!! Read what fragments they took out of Connally, look up the Warren commission own test they did on a bullet fired into bone and tissue , ,show the evidence from the warren commission where they confirmed the blood ,bone skin tissue , from the magic bullet matched both victims.

Forget about asking why Oswald got off the bus one stop to early nonsense and focus on the truth , the evidence and Audrey bell .

No further debate indeed is required when the facts are proven ,as was the case in the magic bullet theory long befor you or I were born.

[GBinOz]

As in other threads your “Mr Nice Guy Poster” persona is slipping George. A couple of poster pointed this out to me a while ago but I stupidly ignored them. Never open insults of course, just an accumulation of snide ones.

I posted that quote, with a full admittance that I couldn’t recall where it came from except that it wasn’t from Bugliosi. And very obviously because I didn’t know where it came from I had no way of verifying it’s validity. I just posted it because you asked for it. If he wasn’t a reliable witness then fine but then again I don’t just take the word of one quote that dismisses it. Maybe it’s crap, maybe there’s more to it?

Feel free to make a snide point about it if you want to.

No comment on your selection of open insults? I try to be polite and civilised in my posts but that doesn't preclude my posting facts which contradict repeated spurious posts.

The quote that you posted proposed that there was no one behind the picket fence. The other quote shows the opposite, that the Desroes were actually in fear of their lives over what they saw. Not a small difference.

[cobalt]

Al Bundy,

I'm not able to do links at my age. But the information from J. Edgar Hoover (who may have been lying of course) was sent to LBJ on the night of the assassination so was considered high priority. Hoover claimed that someone had been impersonating Oswald in Mexico City just over a month before Oswald was identified as the assassin of JFK. Later taped evidence from an Oswald impersonator, intercepted by the CIA from either the Cuban or Russian embassies, was heard by investigators who concluded the same. This information was not revealed to the Warren Commission.

[GBinOz]

Debate is a two-way thing which you have proven not to be interested in. I’m not going to keep responding to your points and questions when you refuse to respond to mine.

Don’t talk about facts when what you really mean is what other CT’s tell you.

So are you willing to call Frazier and Randle liars? Consult the CT’s on the forums first of course.

You suggest I am quoting what other CT's tell me when what I posted contained supporting references to the Warren Commission report.

"So are you willing to call Frazier and Randle liars?" Really? Again with this? The testimony of Frazier and Randle before the WC was that the package was not of sufficient length to contain even the disassembled rifle. Are you calling them liars. You can claim they were mistaken but that doesn't provide factual support for your theory. You complain that I don't reply to your questions. I have replied to this point many times but you act as though you haven't bothered to read replies and just keep repeating the same questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS has still been reluctant to address the issue of Oswald being impersonated in Mexico City. Why was this necessary since, according to Bugliosi, Oswald was doing a sterling job of associating himself with the two most hostile countries known to the USA at that time: USSR and Cuba. The lone gunman was doing a great job, so why on God's earth was it necessary to impersonate him? He was doing fine on his own.

I had to refresh my memory on the Mexico City second Oswald nonsense. The evidence that Oswald (the real one) went to the Cuban consulate and the Russian Embassy to secure an in-transit visa to Cuba to be used on his way back to the then Soviet Union is cast iron.

Ive posted the whole story to let all know the background.

Oswald entered Nueva Laredo at around 2pm on September 26th, 1963, and bus company records showed that he arrived in Mexico City around 10.00 am next day. He checked into the Hotel del Comercio, according to the owner/manager between 10.00 and 11.00 paying for 5 nights stay ($1.28 per night.)

Oswald left Mexico City for Laredo, Texas on the Transportes del Norte bus line at 8.30 am October 2nd and crossed into Texas around 1.35 am October 3rd.

At the Cuban consulate Silvia Tirado de Duran processed Oswald’s visa request on September 27th. In her statement to Mexico’s Federal Security Police she positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald and told them about the reason for his visit (stated above) Oswald had told Duran that he was a friend of the Cuban Revolution and that he felt that the documents that he provided (that he’d lived and worked in Russia, marriage to a Russian, member of Fair Play For Cuba, letters to the USA Communist Party) should entitle him to a visa. Duran, whilst sympathetic, told him that she couldn’t grant him a visa until he got a Russian one which would take time. Oswald became so angry that she had to call for assistance from a man called Eusebio Azcue who was the former Cuban consul in Mexico. He listened to Oswald but repeated what Duran had told him - that it would take 10 to 20 days.

Azcue testified before the HSCA that the first time that he’d seen Oswald in connection with the assassination was around 2 months after the incident when he’d seen him on TV being shot by Jack Ruby an it wasn’t the same man. He described the man at the consulate as “ over 30 years of age and very thin, very thin-faced,” unlike the younger and fuller faced Oswald on TV. Azcue did admit though “ that the conditions under which I had seen him in the film at the time he was killed, with distorted features as a result of the pain, it is conceivable that I might be mistaken.” When the HSCA showed Azcue the photograph of Oswald attached to the visa application he said that the man in the film more closely looked like the man in the photograph than the man he saw at the consulate, though he added: “fifteen years have gone by so it is very difficult for me to be in a position to guarantee it in a categorical form,” though he still didn’t think that the man in the photograph was the man at the consulate.

Azcue didn’t testify before the WC and it’s possible that he was influenced by Jim Garrison’s claim that there was an Oswald imposter around. Azcue however claimed that Garrison merely confirmed his opinion.


So, the reasons why it was the real Oswald……


…… Duran spent much more time with Oswald than Azcue and never wavered in her belief that the man really was Lee Harvey Oswald.


……. Alfredo Mirabal Diaz, who was training to replace Azcue and was one of only three people who saw Oswald at the consulate positively identified that the man seeking the visa was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.


…… Oswald’s visa application bears the date stamp September 27th, 1963, the day he arrived in Mexico City. September 27th was also typed on in Spanish.


…… Duran told Oswald that he needed a photograph for his application and recommended a few places nearby. He returned on the afternoon of the same day with the photos which Duran checked to ensure they matched the man in front of her. They did. The photo is definitely Oswald.


…..CIA handwriting experts confirmed that the writing on the application. The HSCA also had their experts check the handwriting. They confirmed that it was Oswald’s.


…..Duran said that Oswald became angry and red and was almost in tears. Oswald was known to get like this when he didn’t get his own way. (This was a man who beat his wife remember)


….. Would a man trying to pass himself off as Oswald and con himself a visa really have wanted to behave like this and draw attention to himself, possibly causing them to look even closer or more unfavourably at his application?


…..The WC and the HSCA confirmed that the handwriting on the hotel register was Oswald’s


…..The owner/manager of the hotel and the maid identified the man that stayed there as Lee Harvey Oswald.


….The desk clerk and the watchman who got the guest a taxi both identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald.


…..The woman that owned the place near the hotel where the guest ate several times identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald,


…… All of the witnesses who saw him said that he was always alone.


…..In a letter to the Russian Embassy Oswald recounted the trouble that he’d had at the Cuban consulate.


…..On the 27th and the 28th Oswald also went to the Russian Embassy. The three staff that he spoke too all identified him as the man that they saw on TV being killed by Jack Ruby.


…… Oswald told his wife about his plan to go to Cuba and his trip to Mexico and the red tape problems that he had there.


… After his arrest Oswald told Postal Inspector Harry Holmes during his interrogation that he’d gone to Mexico to try to get to Cuba.


……..Duran wanted to help him even though she couldn’t at the time so she gave him her name and the consulates number on a piece of paper which was found in Oswald’s possession.


So we know that it was the real Oswald and we know why he was there and what happened.

……..

So that’s yet another one I’ve answered. Let’s have a look……have any of mine been answered?

Nope.

[cobalt]

Al Bundy,

The problem is we don't know if Oswald actually was in Mexico City at the time. He may well have been. Some embassy staff identified him as the American seeking a visa, others said it was someone completely different. The CIA cameras outside both embassies captured someone who was clearly NOT Oswald. Other cameras seem to have been not functioning at the time. Take your pick.

But it is astonishing that a man who was allegedly about to assassinate the POTUS was drawing so much attention to himself in the period before the assassination.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me guess it also came out in pristine condition , wake up , you can't have a bullet do all that damage to both Kennedy and Connally and remain in its near original condition!!! Read what fragments they took out of Connally, look up the Warren commission own test they did on a bullet fired into bone and tissue , ,show the evidence from the warren commission where they confirmed the blood ,bone skin tissue , from the magic bullet matched both victims.

Forget about asking why Oswald got off the bus one stop to early nonsense and focus on the truth , the evidence and Audrey bell .

No further debate indeed is required when the facts are proven ,as was the case in the magic bullet theory long befor you or I were born.

For the third time….the bullet wasn’t pristine. You keep looking at a photograph taken from one side. It’s not difficult Fishy.

Single Bullet Theory has been confirmed.

That reminds me….you claimed with emphasis that the shots had never been duplicated and I proved that they had not only been duplicated but one guy actually bettered them…..you forgot to respond.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You suggest I am quoting what other CT's tell me when what I posted contained supporting references to the Warren Commission report.

"So are you willing to call Frazier and Randle liars?" Really? Again with this? The testimony of Frazier and Randle before the WC was that the package was not of sufficient length to contain even the disassembled rifle. Are you calling them liars. You can claim they were mistaken but that doesn't provide factual support for your theory. You complain that I don't reply to your questions. I have replied to this point many times but you act as though you haven't bothered to read replies and just keep repeating the same questions.

Blatant dodging. I’ve responded about the packaging. Forget the packaging for a second.

DID THEY BOTH LIE ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD SAYING THAT HE INTENDED TO PICK UP CURTAIN RODS AND THEN THAT THE PACKAGE ACTUALLY CONTAINED CURTAIN RODS?

Surely you can answer one simple question George. It’s not that hard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No comment on your selection of open insults? I try to be polite and civilised in my posts but that doesn't preclude my posting facts which contradict repeated spurious posts.

The quote that you posted proposed that there was no one behind the picket fence. The other quote shows the opposite, that the Desroes were actually in fear of their lives over what they saw. Not a small difference.

A well used phrase. How many witnesses only mentioned seeing stuff years later because they were in fear of their lives? All those death squads on Dealey Plaza fuming with anger because they kept tripping over Garrison’s 20 assassins.