Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    No reference (as usual) but it has Bugliosi stamped all over it. He tried this on Edwin Lopez here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_v...%27sJFKChannel

    Lopez was a special investigator for the House Committe on Assassinations in 77/78.
    Lopez questioned Duran for hours and she admitted that she had not witnessed Oswald sign his application and could not describe even one of Oswald's physical features. There were three cameras 24/7 in the Cuban Embassy, but not one photo of Oswald.

    I encourage everyone to watch that 9 minute video. Lopez worked in the CIA for a time and was fully aware of their black op capabilities. He demolishes every ambush question thrown at him by Bugliosi.
    She talked to Oswald at length. She sent him to get a photograph. She matched the photo to the face of the man standing in front of her (she had to of course) The photo was found attached to his visa application. It was a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Yes, but as usual for you , you missed / ignored the ''Evidence ''that proves the Warren Commission lied about the Magic Bullet, and there for is wrong . Its that simple Herlock ,

      No need any more for big long drawn out ''he said she said'' post that go nowhere and prove nothing .

      Im in good company then as Fisherman and George are correct in the topics they discussed , Hmmmm Trevor well 50/50 on him
      Why is that as soon as you hear of one piece of testimony that you believe supports your viewpoint you assume that this is proof? If you had read on the subject properly instead of just things written from a conspiracy theory point of view you might learn something. The point that you are trumpeting have been rebutted by others.

      Instead of constantly parroting about the insignificant Nurse Bell who was a very minor player in events perhaps one day you might explain why your ‘innocent’ Lee Harvey Oswald lied about the curtain rods. There appears to be some kind of aversion to confronting this issue. I wonder why?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Why is that as soon as you hear of one piece of testimony that you believe supports your viewpoint you assume that this is proof? If you had read on the subject properly instead of just things written from a conspiracy theory point of view you might learn something. The point that you are trumpeting have been rebutted by others.

        Instead of constantly parroting about the insignificant Nurse Bell who was a very minor player in events perhaps one day you might explain why your ‘innocent’ Lee Harvey Oswald lied about the curtain rods. There appears to be some kind of aversion to confronting this issue. I wonder why?
        Your deflecting from the evidence again.. wheres the evidence in the warren commission of the damage side of bullet theory .?

        What page on the warren commission report do the 3 fingerprint experts tie the paper bag to the rifle?

        I can go on and on ,

        Don't you love the way apologist just brush aside what they can't explain,

        Now Audrey bell is classed as "insignificant "" ( ill add that to her bio next time)
        A nurse who actually saw the bullet fragments removed from Connally the day of the assassination.!!!!

        And you ve got curtains rods , !!!!! In a paper bag that can't be matched to have carried the rifle . Extraordinary.
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
          The Edgewood Arsenal report was commissioned by LBJ to conduct tests on Oswald's rifle involving the effect on a bullet being shot through live goats and the wrist of a human cadaver. Below is the result of the tests involving the latter only. The effect of impact with two ribs in addition to the cadaver's wrist would be cumulative. Does anyone think that these bullets look like the magic bullet?
          Source: https://www.maryferrell.org/

          Click image for larger version Name:	Cadaver 2.png Views:	0 Size:	41.9 KB ID:	804566

          ‘Pristine’ means perfect or undamaged. This is a clear lie by conspiracy theorists who employ the trick of only showing the photograph of the bullet from one angle. A clear indicator of the kind of tactics employed to manufacture a conspiracy George.


          The HSCA produced 4 photographs of the bullet. The base of the bullet had been deformed into an ovoid shape. Firearms expert Monty Lutz saw the actual bullet (and not just a photograph) at the National Archive also said that the bullet was slightly curved. It was also shown to be slightly flattened at its base although the 4 available photographs don’t show this. The HSCA wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan also pointed out that there was an extrusion of lead from the base of the bullet which is the first thing that occurs when a bullet begins to deform. The jacket begins to peel off under pressure and the softer core comes through.


          The ‘pristine’ bullet weighed 158.6 grains against its original weight of 161 grains. So ‘pristine’ is a clear conspiracist myth. Medical Examiner Michael Barden called it an inaccurate media description. He also said: “It is like being a little bit pregnant - it is either pristine or it is not pristine.” And: “This is a damaged bullet….not a pristine bullet. This is a bullet that is deformed. It would be very hard to take a hammer and flatten it to the degree that this is flattened.” He also said that as the bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally it: “it did not strike much that would cause it to be damaged.” The first thing that the bullet hit was a glancing blow to Connally’s fifth rib. Described by Baden as: “a very thin bone.” The most damage would have been done as it hit on the lower part of the Governor’s forearm. The panel of experts said that the damage to the bullet would have been done by it striking the radius. They were not particularly surprised by the extent of the damage. The radius is not a very hard bone . It could damage some bullets but not others.


          Dr. Charles Petty, Chief Medical Officer for Dallas County and member of the HSCA was asked: “Could this bullet have ended up in the relatively pristine condition if it had entered the president’s back, exited his throat, then entered Governor Connally’s back….and taken the path through Governor Connally’s body you have just described?” His answer: “Yes, of course.” Asked to explain he said: “This bullet is a full, metal-jacketed military [type] bullet, designed to pass through [ ie without fragmenting] the soft tissue of an individual, exactly as it did in President Kennedy’s instance. It then contacted bone in only two areas. First, the rib in Connally, and second wrist bone in Connally. In neither instance did it penetrate the rib or the wrist bone.” He then added that the bullet could easily have taken the course that it had done: “without sustaining great deformity. I’ve seen it many times.”


          Dr. John Lattimer who conducted tests on a carcano bullet said of the WC’s tests “the WC did not conduct the proper experiments. They fired a 6.5 MM bullet travelling at over 2,000 feet per second directly into a wrist bone. Of course you are going to get deformation of the bullet when it strikes a hard object at full speed.


          There is a long drawn out technical explanation of the decreasing speed of the Kennedy bullet over a distance and then after penetrating Kennedy which I won’t add because it will just make this post even longer and I’m sick of typing.


          Strip away the hysteria and we can clearly see that there is zero issue with the bullet. It’s all been explained.


          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            During many discussions on the ripper case you have fully accepted, and have often quite rightly been the one to state, that witnesses can be mistaken; especially when thinking back to make estimations. It does seem strange though George that, in the JFK case (and more specifically in the case of the identification of the package) you appear to have abandoned that belief as you are unwilling to accept the possibility of an estimation error in the case of Frazier and Randle. Ok.

            With the above in mind the following is from the FBI’s interview with Randle at the Police station on the day of the assassination.
            This is a bit rich my friend. As I recall, on the Richardson thread you were 100% sure that Richardson, Cadosh and Long were absolutely unimpeachable in their evidence, that they were not mistaken in even the finest detail.

            For the second part, can you provide a reference please.
            The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. - John F Kennedy

            Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              ‘Pristine’ means perfect or undamaged. This is a clear lie by conspiracy theorists who employ the trick of only showing the photograph of the bullet from one angle. A clear indicator of the kind of tactics employed to manufacture a conspiracy George.
              Please feel free to show the pristine bullet at any angle that exhibits the distortion of the above test bullets. Then we shall determine who is lying.

              The HSCA produced 4 photographs of the bullet. The base of the bullet had been deformed into an ovoid shape. Firearms expert Monty Lutz saw the actual bullet (and not just a photograph) at the National Archive also said that the bullet was slightly curved. It was also shown to be slightly flattened at its base although the 4 available photographs don’t show this. The HSCA wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan also pointed out that there was an extrusion of lead from the base of the bullet which is the first thing that occurs when a bullet begins to deform. The jacket begins to peel off under pressure and the softer core comes through.
              The base of the bullet is not what contacts the target. But maybe I should abandon my 50 years of experience with rifles, shotguns, handguns and pistols and blackpowder and defer to your recently acquired google expertise.

              The ‘pristine’ bullet weighed 158.6 grains against its original weight of 161 grains. So ‘pristine’ is a clear conspiracist myth. Medical Examiner Michael Barden called it an inaccurate media description. He also said: “It is like being a little bit pregnant - it is either pristine or it is not pristine.” And: “This is a damaged bullet….not a pristine bullet. This is a bullet that is deformed. It would be very hard to take a hammer and flatten it to the degree that this is flattened.” He also said that as the bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally it: “it did not strike much that would cause it to be damaged.” The first thing that the bullet hit was a glancing blow to Connally’s fifth rib. Described by Baden as: “a very thin bone.” The most damage would have been done as it hit on the lower part of the Governor’s forearm. The panel of experts said that the damage to the bullet would have been done by it striking the radius. They were not particularly surprised by the extent of the damage. The radius is not a very hard bone . It could damage some bullets but not others.
              Ahh, you are now talking about bullet weights in grains. An instant google expert. Do you know that Connolly's doctors said he took more fragments to the grave than were missing from the magic bullet.
              My first thought is that Barden should stick to medicine since he clearly has no knowledge of firearms. My second thought, in the light of Wecht's testimony of the size and hardness of Connolly's radius, is that Barden may be more suited to some other profession.


              Dr. Charles Petty, Chief Medical Officer for Dallas County and member of the HSCA was asked: “Could this bullet have ended up in the relatively pristine condition if it had entered the president’s back, exited his throat, then entered Governor Connally’s back….and taken the path through Governor Connally’s body you have just described?” His answer: “Yes, of course.” Asked to explain he said: “This bullet is a full, metal-jacketed military [type] bullet, designed to pass through [ ie without fragmenting] the soft tissue of an individual, exactly as it did in President Kennedy’s instance. It then contacted bone in only two areas. First, the rib in Connally, and second wrist bone in Connally. In neither instance did it penetrate the rib or the wrist bone.” He then added that the bullet could easily have taken the course that it had done: “without sustaining great deformity. I’ve seen it many times.”
              Complete nonsense. Not worthy of any further comment.

              Dr. John Lattimer who conducted tests on a carcano bullet said of the WC’s tests “the WC did not conduct the proper experiments. They fired a 6.5 MM bullet travelling at over 2,000 feet per second directly into a wrist bone. Of course you are going to get deformation of the bullet when it strikes a hard object at full speed.
              In my younger days I could quote distance/velocity tables and distance/drop tables for most calibres from memory. What Lattimer is saying is total nonsense and should not be referred to by someone who is firearms illiterate. We're not talking ranges of 1000 yards (I've shot at targets at 4000 yards), barely 100 yards.

              There is a long drawn out technical explanation of the decreasing speed of the Kennedy bullet over a distance and then after penetrating Kennedy which I won’t add because it will just make this post even longer and I’m sick of typing.
              Long drawn out doesn't mean valid, it just confuses those who know nothing about ballistics. Velocity reduction over distance is not great at a distance of 100 yards, and as a person who has acknowledged zero knowledge of ballistics it ill behoves you to be quoting this nonsense.

              Strip away the hysteria and we can clearly see that there is zero issue with the bullet. It’s all been explained.

              What can be clearly seen is that the poster is quoting statements regarding subjects about which he has no knowledge If he had even the slightest knowledge of ballistics he would be embarrassed at what a load of old rubbish he was advocating.
              Last edited by GBinOz; 02-23-2023, 01:13 PM.
              The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. - John F Kennedy

              Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Your deflecting from the evidence again.. wheres the evidence in the warren commission of the damage side of bullet theory .?

                What page on the warren commission report do the 3 fingerprint experts tie the paper bag to the rifle?

                I can go on and on ,

                Don't you love the way apologist just brush aside what they can't explain,

                Now Audrey bell is classed as "insignificant "" ( ill add that to her bio next time)
                A nurse who actually saw the bullet fragments removed from Connally the day of the assassination.!!!!

                And you ve got curtains rods , !!!!! In a paper bag that can't be matched to have carried the rifle . Extraordinary.
                Hi Fishy,

                Your questions were rhetorical weren't they? You're not really expecting a reply from the answer master (don't forget we're both batting zero in that regard ). And of course Audrey Bell is insignificant and unreliable. Not at all like Richardson, Cadosch and Long in Hanbury St.
                I'm still searching for the account that states that JFK suffered "death by curtain rods".

                I suppose I'll end up in hell for taking the mickey out of poor Herlock ... but then again, maybe not. Apparently I am to be evicted from the "Nice Guy" club. I didn't even know I was a member so....

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 02-23-2023, 01:43 PM.
                The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. - John F Kennedy

                Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Your deflecting from the evidence again.. wheres the evidence in the warren commission of the damage side of bullet theory .?

                  What page on the warren commission report do the 3 fingerprint experts tie the paper bag to the rifle?

                  I can go on and on ,

                  Don't you love the way apologist just brush aside what they can't explain,

                  Now Audrey bell is classed as "insignificant "" ( ill add that to her bio next time)
                  A nurse who actually saw the bullet fragments removed from Connally the day of the assassination.!!!!

                  And you ve got curtains rods , !!!!! In a paper bag that can't be matched to have carried the rifle . Extraordinary.
                  This drivel is not worth responding too.

                  In what way was Nurse Bell an expert in bullet fragments? Did she weigh them? No she didn’t. These were minute quantities. How could she have possibly made her ill informed guesswork?

                  Its pathetic. You latch onto this complete and utter nonentity in terms of this investigation and ignore the genuine, authentic experts who tell us the truth about the actual bullet.

                  God, your posts are just getting poorer and poorer if that’s humanly possible.

                  I give detailed, in-depth responses using proper experts on the topic at hand and all that you can do is jump up and down squealing “what about Nurse Bell, what about Nurse Bell!”

                  And again…do you accuse Frazier and Randle of lying about Oswald’s curtain rods story? A simple yes or no shouldn’t be too difficult. You can even PM George to consult. Maybe between the two of you you can pluck up the coursge for a straight answer. Though I doubt it.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    What can be clearly seen is that the poster is quoting statements regarding subjects about which he has no knowledge If he had even the slightest knowledge of ballistics he would be embarrassed at what a load of old rubbish he was advocating.
                    A pathetic, lame and biased non-response. I’ve quoted experts that kick, your conspiracist silliness into the long grass. The ‘pristine’ bullet is nothing more than a 100% proven lie. Repeated so often by Conspiracy Theorists that those who don’t examine the actual facts assume that the idea is a fact. Nothing but a proven lie.

                    No need for further comment on this. The experts testimony is all that we need.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Fishy,

                      Your questions were rhetorical weren't they? You're not really expecting a reply from the answer master (don't forget we're both batting zero in that regard ). And of course Audrey Bell is insignificant and unreliable. Not at all like Richardson, Cadosch and Long in Hanbury St.
                      I'm still searching for the account that states that JFK suffered "death by curtain rods".

                      I suppose I'll end up in hell for taking the mickey out of poor Herlock ... but then again, maybe not. Apparently I am to be evicted from the "Nice Guy" club. I didn't even know I was a member so....

                      Cheers, George
                      Increasing deranged posts.

                      First.

                      I tell you what George, when I get time I’ll read back through this thread. I’ll log how many questions that I’ve been asked and how many I’ve answered. Then I’ll log how many questions I’ve asked and how many of them you, Fishy and Cobalt have responded too.

                      I think we all know what the score will be despite the above lie.

                      ​​​​​​……..

                      Second.

                      ​​​​​​​
                      Its ironic but fitting that you mention Richardson, Long and Cadosch. Three witness who you believe to have been mistaken as human beings can be. And yet you cannot accept that Frazier and Randle could have been mistaken in what was an estimation. It looks like witnesses can only be mistaken when you it suits you.

                      ​​​​​​……

                      ​​​​​​​Third.

                      Yet another thing you’ve avoided. No response to Randle’s earlier statement that the package was 3 feet long. You must have forgotten…again George

                      …….

                      ​​​​​​​Fourth.

                      Your biggest obfuscation of all. There was no “death by curtain rods” because there were no curtain rods in the first place. It was a lie told by the obviously guilty Lee Harvey Oswald. And you simple cannot bring yourself to accuse Frazier and Randle of lying can you. You just keep dodging the issue embarrassingly just like your little cheerleader.

                      ​​​​​​……

                      You MUST realise how badly you’re being utterly mauled in this debate by now. Surely? Your blatant obfuscation and dodges tell me that you do.​​​​​​​
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Well, I gave up because I got bored. At a brief check only going back to around page 20 I could see several questions that I answered directly (not one avoided) but not one answered by Fishy and George. Cobalt did respond to 4 points in one post.

                        Any accusation that I’ve ducked questions and George and Fishy haven’t is another provable lie. It’s not even remotely close. But typically of Conspiracy Theorists they try and reverse it to try and make a point.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          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,

                          Any conspiracy in my opinion would have had to include Oswald, to stand even a ghost of a chance of blaming Oswald alone for what happened.

                          His background allowed him to claim he was used as a 'patsy', knowing that many people would want to believe it, but it also suggested a political motive for him as a lone nutter with a gun.

                          He couldn't have been a worse choice for conspirators with national security in mind to choose as their fall guy, because questions were bound to be asked afterwards about whose side he was really on and whether he was acting on behalf of others. The questions have not stopped from that day to this. I bet a lot of people in high places were crapping themselves as soon as Oswald was identified, precisely because they didn't know what he might choose to reveal, or may already have revealed, about the what and the why. How much of a loose cannon could he have turned out to be had he stood trial? What damaging truths or lies could he have told, while trying to save his own skin?

                          Okay, so the conspiracy theorists will say that's precisely why Oswald was taken out before he could talk, but then why take the risk of setting up anyone with things to say, and secrets to tell or sell, and then have to silence them as soon as possible, making it look like two murder conspiracies for the price of one? Any religious weirdo with odd obsessions - like Mark Chapman for instance - could have been persuaded that JFK was the very devil, and a relatively small bunch of extreme conspiracy theorists could then have been left to pick the bones out of that one. I wasn't aware that nutters with strange religious beliefs and a penchant for firearms were as rare as hen's teeth in America in the 1960s.

                          I was still at primary school in November 1963, but I remember watching the events unfold on the tv news. Even at that age I was struck by how very convenient it looked when Jack Ruby shot Oswald dead so soon after Kennedy. It was little wonder that the whole conspiracy bandwagon would begin rolling from that moment.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • A few points made earlier by HS that I will respond to. Did Oswald lie if, as reported by fellow workers, he claimed not to know about the visit of JFK to Dallas? I would say he must have known. Not only was there bound to be discussion in everyday conversation about the visit but as a follower of the political scene and keen reader of newspapers Oswald must have been aware. What he intended to gain by this feigned indifference is hard to say, whether he was innocent or guilty of the crime.

                            Why was Oswald not keen to watch the parade? I doubt that waving at a Presidential car held much attraction for Oswald who portrayed himself as a serious follower of politics. But he must have been keen to pick up the atmosphere on the streets and judge how welcoming or hostile the Dallas public were. Oswald claimed during questioning by Captain Fritz that he was ‘out front’ with a fellow worker but this was never confirmed.

                            Oswald’s movements after the assassination are a matter of dispute but there are two points I would make. First of all, leaving the TSBD was not the action of an average employee since they returned to work eventually. Suspicious behaviour for sure. But walking to catch a bus and taxi was hardly the action of a man who had planned, successfully, an assassination. Surely an assassin would have had some sort of escape route mapped out beforehand.

                            It’s difficult to reconcile the cool manner shown by Oswald as he sauntered out of the TSBD and later when questioned by police, with the edgy character who darted into his boarding house for a brief stop and minutes later attracted the attention of J.D Tippit.

                            ​​

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Hi Abby,

                              Any conspiracy in my opinion would have had to include Oswald, to stand even a ghost of a chance of blaming Oswald alone for what happened.

                              His background allowed him to claim he was used as a 'patsy', knowing that many people would want to believe it, but it also suggested a political motive for him as a lone nutter with a gun.

                              He couldn't have been a worse choice for conspirators with national security in mind to choose as their fall guy, because questions were bound to be asked afterwards about whose side he was really on and whether he was acting on behalf of others. The questions have not stopped from that day to this. I bet a lot of people in high places were crapping themselves as soon as Oswald was identified, precisely because they didn't know what he might choose to reveal, or may already have revealed, about the what and the why. How much of a loose cannon could he have turned out to be had he stood trial? What damaging truths or lies could he have told, while trying to save his own skin?

                              Okay, so the conspiracy theorists will say that's precisely why Oswald was taken out before he could talk, but then why take the risk of setting up anyone with things to say, and secrets to tell or sell, and then have to silence them as soon as possible, making it look like two murder conspiracies for the price of one? Any religious weirdo with odd obsessions - like Mark Chapman for instance - could have been persuaded that JFK was the very devil, and a relatively small bunch of extreme conspiracy theorists could then have been left to pick the bones out of that one. I wasn't aware that nutters with strange religious beliefs and a penchant for firearms were as rare as hen's teeth in America in the 1960s.

                              I was still at primary school in November 1963, but I remember watching the events unfold on the tv news. Even at that age I was struck by how very convenient it looked when Jack Ruby shot Oswald dead so soon after Kennedy. It was little wonder that the whole conspiracy bandwagon would begin rolling from that moment.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              Good points Caz,

                              As the dreaded (to some) Bugliosi said, why would any of these groups have used Oswald and allowed him to roam around, shooting a police officer, then being arrested and interviewed, leaving them the task of getting some random club owner to be lucky enough to get the opportunity of silencing him leaving that person to get arrested and just as free to blab. They would have told Oswald that there would be a car waiting behind the TSBD where they would have driven him out into the desert, bullet in the head then buried where no one would ever have found him. No way would they have employed such a ridiculously complex plan. It’s just a non-starter. It’s difficult to see how anyone could be so naive as to believe it. Then again, if we read some of the stuff conspiracy theorists actually do believe then perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised. In one breath the conspirators set up the ‘ideal’ Oswald then in the other breath e’s a useless shot with a dodgy rifle. In one breath they co-ordinate a plan that would have been beyond the combined efforts of Napoleon, Wellington, Caesar and Alexander the Great and on the other they leave they mistakenly leave a second rifle lying around. It’s a joke.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                                A few points made earlier by HS that I will respond to. Did Oswald lie if, as reported by fellow workers, he claimed not to know about the visit of JFK to Dallas? I would say he must have known. Not only was there bound to be discussion in everyday conversation about the visit but as a follower of the political scene and keen reader of newspapers Oswald must have been aware. What he intended to gain by this feigned indifference is hard to say, whether he was innocent or guilty of the crime.

                                And unlike George and Fishy, I’ll answer.

                                He always talked politics and Kennedy with Marina but refused to one the Thursday evening too when she mentioned the visit. So it’s simply impossible that he didn’t know. The political Oswald would have been the only man in Dallas to be unaware of the visit. Like the curtain rods story it was simply a lie. Surely it can only have been to try and show that he had no plans to kill Kennedy if he wasn’t even aware of his visit.

                                Why was Oswald not keen to watch the parade? I doubt that waving at a Presidential car held much attraction for Oswald who portrayed himself as a serious follower of politics. But he must have been keen to pick up the atmosphere on the streets and judge how welcoming or hostile the Dallas public were. Oswald claimed during questioning by Captain Fritz that he was ‘out front’ with a fellow worker but this was never confirmed.

                                And at 11.55 he told Charles Givens that he intended to stay on the 6th floor. He said that he’d eaten lunch with Jarman but this was a lie confirmed by Jarman himself. He even asked his co-workers on the 6th floor why there was a crowd gathering outside and what the route was. Again, I’d say that this is a man trying to give the impression that he knew nothing of the visit and that he had no plans.

                                Oswald’s movements after the assassination are a matter of dispute but there are two points I would make. First of all, leaving the TSBD was not the action of an average employee since they returned to work eventually. Suspicious behaviour for sure. But walking to catch a bus and taxi was hardly the action of a man who had planned, successfully, an assassination. Surely an assassin would have had some sort of escape route mapped out beforehand.

                                Id say the fact that he fled points heavily at guilt. On his route, I’d say that his plan was just to get back to his rooming house (I can’t even guess at his intention after that although he obviously ended up in the theatre. Of course it could be suggested that he’d intended to meet someone) The first book would have dropped him, I think, 4 blocks from his house but he avoided his usual bus. This implies a man in a hurry as does the fact that he jumped off the bus when it hit traffic and into a taxi, again getting dropped away from his rooming house leaving him to walk back. Earlene Roberts said that he was in a hurry too.

                                It’s difficult to reconcile the cool manner shown by Oswald as he sauntered out of the TSBD and later when questioned by police, with the edgy character who darted into his boarding house for a brief stop and minutes later attracted the attention of J.D Tippit.

                                ​​
                                Its possible that he didn’t expect the police in the TSBD so soon after the shots?



                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X