Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Yes there was George but you’ve neglected the details.

    His name was Jack Dougherty who said:

    ”I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 am.” And he: “didn’t see anything in his hands at that time.” He then added: “ I just caught him out of the corner of my eye.”

    Dougherty’s own Father told the FBI on the day of the assassination that his son had received a medical discharge from the army and that he had: “considerable difficulty in coordinating his mental faculties and his speech.”

    Later, Roy Truly told the Secret Service that: “although Dougherty is a very good employee and a hard worker, he is mentally retarded and has difficulty in remembering facts, such as dates, times, places, and has been especially confused since the assassination.”

    Dougherty is the only witness against Oswald carrying a package. I think that we can safely dispense with him.
    So basically jack Dohertys father and Roy truly have no idea what Doherty saw on the day ? Nor could they ever disprove what he claimed, sure they can give a opinion as to his mental condition but that doesn’t prove he was wrong.

    Speculation is not proof.

    Now if jack Doherty was legally blind you might have something, so I think we can put him back in the witness category


    Last edited by FISHY1118; 02-24-2023, 02:37 AM.
    '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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

      1. That Frazier and Randle told the truth but there estimate of the length of the package was out - despite the fact that Randle’s initial impression was that it was 36 inches long (another inconvenient point which George turns a blind eye to)?

      I go for the obvious number 1.
      Here is an the relevant paragraphs from your previous post:

      RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

      RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.


      After reading the first paragraph I wondered:
      How clean was the glass in her window
      Were there any intervening shrubs or tree branches
      How far away was the car in the driveway
      How long did she observe Oswald.
      Would the open car door obscure the package

      IMO Randle made a very responsible decision. She became unsure how well she had seen the package, citing the distance, but that doesn't preclude there being other factors as well i.e. the time and the car door. So reviewing her memories she decided that the circumstances of the view from the window made her estimate of length less reliable than her view of Oswald holding the package.

      You selectively use "estimates" and question their validity turning a blind eye to the physical comparisons which corroborated the estimate, and each witness corroborating the other. If you put a parcel under your armpit and cup it in your hand, or carry it by the top with the bottom clear of the ground, the package turns out to be around 2 feet long, which corroborates the estimates of measurement. Apart from Randle's original estimate, which she discarded on reflection, what evidence is available for examination showing the package as longer than about 2 feet.

      I will repost the speculation regarding the curtain rods, this time without the troublesome references.

      As with most of the peripheral aspects of the JFK assassination, any solution to the curtain rod mystery requires speculation:
      • Perhaps Oswald had lied to Frazier about the curtain rods, and the bag contained the rifle that was later discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Against this is the testimony of Frazier and Randle, who each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. Frazier also claimed that the bag Oswald had carried was a standard grocery store bag rather than a hand–made package like the one that the Dallas police brought out of the building.
      • Perhaps Oswald had lied to Frazier about the curtain rods, and had actually carried his lunch to work as usual, in a large grocery store bag.
      • Perhaps Frazier had mistakenly recalled an earlier reference to curtain rods, or for some other reason misreported Oswald’s words, and Oswald had actually carried his lunch to work as usual, in a large grocery store bag.
      • Perhaps Frazier had mistakenly recalled an earlier occasion when Oswald placed a package on the back seat of the car, and on the morning of the assassination Oswald had actually carried a grocery store bag in his lap. Oswald had been in the habit of taking his laundry with him when being driven by Frazier to and from Ruth Paine’s house in Irving during his weekend visits. There may well have been several occasions when Oswald placed a package containing his laundry on Frazier’s back seat.
      • Perhaps Oswald had indeed carried curtain rods in the bag. 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 , although her husband Michael was less sure.
      • Perhaps, as Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine testified, the purpose of Lee Oswald’s visit was to reconcile with Marina after a quarrel, and the story of the curtain rods was simply a polite way of getting Frazier, a 19–year–old casual acquaintance, to mind his own business.
      A bag of 2 feet in length can hold sandwiches, bananas, pies, curtain rods or even a powder scale or a small microscope, but it can't hold a rifle.
      They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
      Out of a misty dream
      Our path emerges for a while, then closes
      Within a dream.
      Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

      ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Yes there was George but you’ve neglected the details.

        His name was Jack Dougherty who said:

        ”I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 am.” And he: “didn’t see anything in his hands at that time.” He then added: “ I just caught him out of the corner of my eye.”

        Dougherty’s own Father told the FBI on the day of the assassination that his son had received a medical discharge from the army and that he had: “considerable difficulty in coordinating his mental faculties and his speech.”

        Later, Roy Truly told the Secret Service that: “although Dougherty is a very good employee and a hard worker, he is mentally retarded and has difficulty in remembering facts, such as dates, times, places, and has been especially confused since the assassination.”

        Dougherty is the only witness against Oswald carrying a package. I think that we can safely dispense with him.
        Yeah, that's fine by me. I think we can dispense with Randle's initial estimate as well. She did the responsible thing, and taking this into account, the important thing is that no witness testified that they saw Oswald with a package of a size that could contain a rifle or that they saw a home made package. If you want to cling to your "they were mistaken" explanation, the statement still stands.
        They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
        Out of a misty dream
        Our path emerges for a while, then closes
        Within a dream.
        Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

        Comment


        • SEN.RICHARD RUSSELL

          ''The committee- the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, i dont believe it''!

          PRESIDENT JOHNSON

          ''I dont either''

          SEN.RICHARD RUSSELL

          ''And so i couldnt sign it . I said that Governor Connally testified direct to the contrary and im not going to approve of that . So , i finally made them say there was a difference in the commission in that , part of them believed that wasnt so.





          So here we have the President of the United States , a member of the Warren Commission , and the man himself Governor Connally, only the man who who was shot sitting next the President on that day mind you, all calling bulls.. on the magic bullet theory !!!!!!!!

          Yet 60 years later on a public forum we have people who werent even born at the time telling us, telling everybody it did,!!!!! thanks to their naive acceptance of the Warren Commission report that fooled them all .


          Well done ,your now telling us your smarter than

          1. A President of the united states

          2. Governor Connally who was shot on the day

          3. And a member of the Warren Commision itself who didnt believe the magic bullet garbage.

          ​Oh just in case, you can hear this actual phone conversation itself on JFK Unsolved ''The real conpiracy'' 27mins in .
          '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


          • Curtain rods
            '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 FISHY1118 View Post

              ​Oh just in case, you can hear this actual phone conversation itself on JFK Unsolved ''The real conpiracy'' 27mins in .
              Hi Fishy,

              That is probably the best video out there at present. Testimony from experts in their field of expertise, not doctors talking about ballistics. And the witnesses who were actually the closest to JFK during the actual shooting, all saying there were shots from the grassy knoll, rather than constant harping about curtain rods and speculative arguments starting with "why would".

              The most relevant and reliable medical evidence comes from the the doctors and nurses at Parklands. Eighteen doctors stated that the fatal entry wound entered the right temple and blasted out the right occipital. This was corroborated by the witnesses standing only feet from JFK at the time.

              The custody of JFK's body was broken when the Presidential style coffin was loaded onto Airforce One, and there is a gap until it reappeared in a body bag in a transportation case at Bethesda to be autopsied by three doctors who had not one gsw case experience between them. And I'm not suggesting that JFK's body was tampered with while on Airforce One. I'm suggesting that his body was never on Airforce One.

              The video also proposes that there were two head shots, the fatal shot from the knoll followed by one from the rear 0.7 seconds later. The missing brain would clarify, but while 2/3 of the brain was present at Parklands, witness testimony is that the cranial cavity was empty on arrival at Bethesda.

              I think we are wasting our time trying to educate what my grandmother used to refer to as "stick in the muds". Those anchored in the paste who cannot accept new information. I wonder how long this thread would continue if HS got his way and we "Clowns" withdrew?

              Cheers, George
              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
              Out of a misty dream
              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
              Within a dream.
              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Fishy,

                That is probably the best video out there at present. Testimony from experts in their field of expertise, not doctors talking about ballistics. And the witnesses who were actually the closest to JFK during the actual shooting, all saying there were shots from the grassy knoll, rather than constant harping about curtain rods and speculative arguments starting with "why would".

                The most relevant and reliable medical evidence comes from the the doctors and nurses at Parklands. Eighteen doctors stated that the fatal entry wound entered the right temple and blasted out the right occipital. This was corroborated by the witnesses standing only feet from JFK at the time.

                The custody of JFK's body was broken when the Presidential style coffin was loaded onto Airforce One, and there is a gap until it reappeared in a body bag in a transportation case at Bethesda to be autopsied by three doctors who had not one gsw case experience between them. And I'm not suggesting that JFK's body was tampered with while on Airforce One. I'm suggesting that his body was never on Airforce One.

                The video also proposes that there were two head shots, the fatal shot from the knoll followed by one from the rear 0.7 seconds later. The missing brain would clarify, but while 2/3 of the brain was present at Parklands, witness testimony is that the cranial cavity was empty on arrival at Bethesda.

                I think we are wasting our time trying to educate what my grandmother used to refer to as "stick in the muds". Those anchored in the paste who cannot accept new information. I wonder how long this thread would continue if HS got his way and we "Clowns" withdrew?

                Cheers, George
                George, Your not the only one suggesting that about the questionable transportation of Kennedys body after it left parkland hospital.

                I've researched this point at great length and from what I've found is your pretty much on the money there.

                But 1 step at a time ,we don't want to confuse the already confused too much.
                '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


                • Simple question for everyone - Kennedy and Connally were demonstrated by film taken from the TSBD window in a re-enactment, to have been in alignment for a bullet passing through Kennedy to strike Connally. One bullet went through Kennedy's flesh only. Why didn't it hit Connally, and what happened to it?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                    Simple question for everyone - Kennedy and Connally were demonstrated by film taken from the TSBD window in a re-enactment, to have been in alignment for a bullet passing through Kennedy to strike Connally. One bullet went through Kennedy's flesh only. Why didn't it hit Connally, and what happened to it?
                    And how did another bullet hit Connally without hitting Kennedy first?

                    I fully understand the reservations about the single bullet theory, but I have problems establishing an alternative theory.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Does it look crushed like the test bullets to anyone?
                      As the experts said, not all bullets end up looking the same.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        So basically jack Dohertys father and Roy truly have no idea what Doherty saw on the day ? Nor could they ever disprove what he claimed, sure they can give a opinion as to his mental condition but that doesn’t prove he was wrong.

                        Speculation is not proof.

                        Now if jack Doherty was legally blind you might have something, so I think we can put him back in the witness category

                        Dougherty saw Oswald very briefly out of the corner of his eye and he didn’t notice anything in his hands. That in itself is a weak viewing. Add the issues that Dougherty had. Add Frazier and Randle (who you and George STILL can’t bring yourself to call a liar) and we can see the value of Dougherty as a witness.

                        Finally Fishy, Oswald said that he’d taken his lunch to work but Dougherty didn’t see that either. So it’s safe to say that Dougherty can be dismissed as a valid witness.

                        Comment




                        • Whether one chooses to ''Lone Gunman'' or ''Multible Shooters'' this is truly a sad piece as described by a then 34 year 2nd term doctor Dr Robert Mccelland as he describes what happen that day he was told the President has been shot and he was needed in Trauma room 1 immediatley .

                          Its incredable listening to him described what he and other doctors did the minute President kennedy was wheeled in. Take a listen, if only to hear just how sad a day it must have been for everyone , especially Jackie Kennedy.
                          '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

                            Here is an the relevant paragraphs from your previous post:

                            RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

                            RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.


                            After reading the first paragraph I wondered:
                            How clean was the glass in her window
                            Were there any intervening shrubs or tree branches
                            How far away was the car in the driveway
                            How long did she observe Oswald.
                            Would the open car door obscure the package

                            All of which, if relevant, might have affected her judgment of size.

                            IMO Randle made a very responsible decision. She became unsure how well she had seen the package, citing the distance, but that doesn't preclude there being other factors as well i.e. the time and the car door. So reviewing her memories she decided that the circumstances of the view from the window made her estimate of length less reliable than her view of Oswald holding the package.

                            Yes because you were there George and saw all of the obstacles and uncleaned windows.

                            You selectively use "estimates" and question their validity turning a blind eye to the physical comparisons which corroborated the estimate, and each witness corroborating the other. If you put a parcel under your armpit and cup it in your hand, or carry it by the top with the bottom clear of the ground, the package turns out to be around 2 feet long, which corroborates the estimates of measurement. Apart from Randle's original estimate, which she discarded on reflection, what evidence is available for examination showing the package as longer than about 2 feet.

                            No George I use ‘estimate’ entirely legitimately. If the size of an object isn’t measured then it’s estimated. It’s one of the other. You can’t invent language to invent a point. Then again, you’re a conspiracy theorist…

                            I will repost the speculation regarding the curtain rods, this time without the troublesome references.

                            Or the troublesome facts.

                            As with most of the peripheral aspects of the JFK assassination, any solution to the curtain rod mystery requires speculation:
                            • Perhaps Oswald had lied to Frazier about the curtain rods, and the bag contained the rifle that was later discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Against this is the testimony of Frazier and Randle, who each stated on two occasions that the bag they saw was much too short to have contained the rifle, even in its disassembled state. Frazier also claimed that the bag Oswald had carried was a standard grocery store bag rather than a hand–made package like the one that the Dallas police brought out of the building.

                              He did lie. There’s no perhaps about it. Are you now claiming that witness cannot make an error in the estimation of size?
                            • Perhaps Oswald had lied to Frazier about the curtain rods, and had actually carried his lunch to work as usual, in a large grocery store bag.

                              He did. It means at the very, very least he was up to something. Perhaps he’d knocked off a curtain rod supplier and was taking the swag to work to sell?
                            • Perhaps Frazier had mistakenly recalled an earlier reference to curtain rods, or for some other reason misreported Oswald’s words, and Oswald had actually carried his lunch to work as usual, in a large grocery store bag.

                              Yes, perhaps Oswald (a man who needed curtain rods as much as Richard Branson needs a Tesco Clubcard) just struck up a random ‘curtain rods-related’ chat.
                            • Perhaps Frazier had mistakenly recalled an earlier occasion when Oswald placed a package on the back seat of the car, and on the morning of the assassination Oswald had actually carried a grocery store bag in his lap. Oswald had been in the habit of taking his laundry with him when being driven by Frazier to and from Ruth Paine’s house in Irving during his weekend visits. There may well have been several occasions when Oswald placed a package containing his laundry on Frazier’s back seat.

                              Which he must have done in around a week or so? His sister, interviewed on the day of the assassination misremembered too?
                            • Perhaps Oswald had indeed carried curtain rods in the bag. 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 , although her husband Michael was less sure.

                              What’s the point of adding this point, just for the sake of trying to make it look like there might have been an innocent explanation, when we know that there were no rods at the TSBD. They didn’t exist. Oswald had no curtain rods. He lied.
                            • Perhaps, as Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine testified, the purpose of Lee Oswald’s visit was to reconcile with Marina after a quarrel, and the story of the curtain rods was simply a polite way of getting Frazier, a 19–year–old casual acquaintance, to mind his own business.

                              That’s possibly the weakest point ever made in the history of true crime. Simply staggering that you will go to these lengths George.
                            A bag of 2 feet in length can hold sandwiches, bananas, pies, curtain rods or even a powder scale or a small microscope, but it can't hold a rifle

                            Just for my sake could you just take the time to give me a yes or no answer to this point please?

                            Q - Is it the case, as you appear now to believe, that witnesses who give an estimation of size (especially one’s that get a fairly brief look and who at the time had no reason to make any kind of mental assessment of the size) can never make an incorrect estimation?

                            .
                            For Christ’s sake George aren’t you embarrassed about this kind of limbo dancing just to try and shoehorn in a conspiracy theory?

                            LEE HARVEY OSWALD LIED ABOUT CARRYING CURTAIN RODS TO WORK. THIS CANNOT BE DISPUTED. WE KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T CARRY CURTAIN RODS TO WORK. THEREFORE HE LIED. INNOCENT PEOPLE DON’T LIE.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              SEN.RICHARD RUSSELL

                              ''The committee- the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, i dont believe it''!

                              PRESIDENT JOHNSON

                              ''I dont either''

                              SEN.RICHARD RUSSELL

                              ''And so i couldnt sign it . I said that Governor Connally testified direct to the contrary and im not going to approve of that . So , i finally made them say there was a difference in the commission in that , part of them believed that wasnt so.





                              So here we have the President of the United States , a member of the Warren Commission , and the man himself Governor Connally, only the man who who was shot sitting next the President on that day mind you, all calling bulls.. on the magic bullet theory !!!!!!!!

                              Yet 60 years later on a public forum we have people who werent even born at the time telling us, telling everybody it did,!!!!! thanks to their naive acceptance of the Warren Commission report that fooled them all .


                              Well done ,your now telling us your smarter than

                              1. A President of the united states

                              2. Governor Connally who was shot on the day

                              3. And a member of the Warren Commision itself who didnt believe the magic bullet garbage.

                              ​Oh just in case, you can hear this actual phone conversation itself on JFK Unsolved ''The real conpiracy'' 27mins in .
                              I’m glad that you made this point Fishy because it was one that I’d intended to make at some point. I believe that there was more than one Warren Commission who quite publicly said that they weren’t entirely convinced by the SBT ( 2 or possible 3 I can’t recall)

                              So how is this evidence of a corruptly set up Commission with the verdict a foregone conclusion. Those that had doubts and speaking openly about it were certainly playing with fire by encouraging dissent and risking their corrupt connection to a corrupt commission.

                              Thanks for reminding me of that point Fishy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                Curtain rods

                                Non-existent ones. Invented by an ‘innocent’ man.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X