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 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?
    It was the Conspiracy Theorists magic bullet Doc. It exited Kennedy then angled upward and flew away. With the angle that existed this is the only explanation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      Im glad you bought that point up Herlock ,its obvious the Warren Commission was set up to one thing and one thing only, as per LBJ own instructions .Just because one or two on the Commission didnt believe the silly notion of the magic bullet, doesnt detract from what it ultimately succeeded in doing , which was to convince the world of a lone shooter with ridiculous evidence.

      But i thank you for making it a very simple answer to a nothing question.
      Last edited by FISHY1118; 02-24-2023, 11:16 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 FISHY1118 View Post

        Im glad you bought that point up Herlock ,its obvious the Warren Commission was set up to one thing and one thing only, as per LBJ own instructions .Just because one or two on the Commission didnt believe the silly notion of the magic bullet, doesnt detract from what it ultimately succeeded in doing , which was to convince the world of a lone shooter with ridiculous evidence.

        But i thank you for making it a very simple answer to a nothing question.

        Comment


        • I’ve got a lifelong fondness for Laurel and Hardly. They were incompetent at everything but always funny and I’m starting to feel the same way about our brilliant conspirators. I mean come on…..it’s comedy gold.


          Not only did they stupidly, after all of this multi-level planning, leave the wrong type of rifle lying on the 6th floor which they proceeded to display to the entire world but they also planted a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland hospital, forgetting to bash it about a bit first so that no one could question whether it was genuine or not (or perhaps they hoped that no one would check? After all, it was only the murder of the most powerful man in the world so who’d have thought that an autopsy would have happened?) Then they forged 4 photographs of Oswald with his guns not realising that they might be examined to see if they were genuine then they completely forgot that there was 4 and not 3, leaving one to turn up in 1977 with Oswald’s writing on the back. Then they left it to absolute chance that no other employee saw him, even for a second, anywhere other than the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. Even clowns deserve a bit of luck but this one is at lottery win level. Then, would you Adan and Eve it, that idiot Oswald forgets to leave his curtain rods on the 6th floor allowing all those crazy single gunmen people to think: “hey, I wonder if this guy might have lied about his abiding interest in interior decor?” Then to cap it off, our poor, hapless, innocent, gullible lamb Lee goes and agrees to carry a few cards in his wallet with the name of a non-existent person which he didn’t realise might have been seen as a tad suspicious (especially when it’s discovered that the same non-exist and person ordered the rifle that shot Kennedy and the revolver that shot Tippit.) Then the poor sap makes himself look guilty by lying about eating his lunch with Junior Jarman and then even guiltier by fleeing the scene of an assassination in the strangest manner imaginable.


          These high level agency Conspirators……you just can’t rely on them for a decent plot can you?


          Cue The Cuckoo Song. “Well, here’s another nice mess they got Oswald into.”
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-24-2023, 02:06 PM.

          Comment


          • Nowhere in HS’s contribution is any acknowledgment of two rather important facts concerning Oswald. The first is that Oswald had been an asset of the CIA which, shock horror, requires a fair bit of deception and lying. Given his nest egg of $170 dollars (if correct) I would suggest he was still on some sort of retainer for the agency. Secondly, the no-hoper Oswald in a series of dead end jobs was being impersonated in Mexico City a month prior to the assassination. Bugliosi and HS are at great pains to insist Oswald was indeed in Mexico City at this time, but even if we grant that possibility it still does not explain what purpose was being served by his being impersonated at the same time.

            Caz suggested earlier that if innocent, Oswald was extremely unlucky. I would approach that from the opposite end and suggest that if Oswald was guilty, then he was astonishingly lucky in managing to assassinate JFK. When wandering around Mexico City allegedly threatening to shoot Kennedy, Oswald would not have been aware that the POTUS was about to visit Dallas. He could obviously have never guessed at that time that JFK was going to drive slowly past Oswald’s place of work. Everything was falling into place. His Carcano would have been nobody’s first choice as a sniper rifle, and there is no evidence Oswald had been practising with it, but for all that he managed to find a quiet spot on the 6th floor to assemble it (some have suggested with a small coin) and take aim. The fact the parade was 15 minutes late could not have been known to Oswald up in his eerie but that also was a stroke of good fortune.

            Oswald was a fair shot we can assume, but even he must have been impressed by the accuracy of two of his shots: one dead centre in the back and a more difficult shot (given JFK had slumped) which struck JFK in the head, presumably causing near instant death. His luck continued for a while for after this monstrous act. Oswald was able to hide the rifle (why bother?) pop down to the lunch room for a cola and then walk out the front door of the TSBD to catch that well known method of escape for the assassin: a public transport bus. For whatever reasons, the Gods were with him that Dallas morning.

            Comment


            • There's a crazy theory, apparently debunked, that while Oswald was indeed attempting to assassinate Kennedy, the fatal shot was 'friendly fire' from a Secret Service agent traveling directly behind the presidential car; the theory goes that the agent had been issued a new and unfamiliar firearm that week, and embarrassed by this mishap, the government hushed it up.

              I casually ran this past a friend of mine who has studied the case in far, far greater detail than I ever have, and he dismissed it at once. Maybe some here have heard about it. I don't endorse it--I just never heard about it until recently.

              The odds seem a little...remote.

              Comment


              • Crazy is a fair summation of that theory. I can only guess that such theories are ventilated in order to discredit those who question the Lone Gunman Theory, to taint them by association as it were.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                  Nowhere in HS’s contribution is any acknowledgment of two rather important facts concerning Oswald. The first is that Oswald had been an asset of the CIA which, shock horror, requires a fair bit of deception and lying. Given his nest egg of $170 dollars (if correct) I would suggest he was still on some sort of retainer for the agency. Secondly, the no-hoper Oswald in a series of dead end jobs was being impersonated in Mexico City a month prior to the assassination. Bugliosi and HS are at great pains to insist Oswald was indeed in Mexico City at this time, but even if we grant that possibility it still does not explain what purpose was being served by his being impersonated at the same time.

                  Oswald’s ‘nest egg’ in no way implies a retainer. He was a skinflint who Marina used to have to plead with for the tiniest amount of cash to spend on the kids. Any involvement that he had earlier doesn’t mean that the CIA were involved in any way in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. It certainly could me that they would have been keen for any information about this connection to come out due to, a) the embarrassment factor, and b) any assumed connection between them and the assassination.

                  The evidence that Oswald was in Mexico is an absolute Mount Everest. Look at the points that I posted. Look at the witnesses who positively identified him. Against this there are 2 people, one of whom accepted that he could have been mistaken. Everything points to Oswald being in Mexico City. He even told Marina that he’d been.


                  Caz suggested earlier that if innocent, Oswald was extremely unlucky. I would approach that from the opposite end and suggest that if Oswald was guilty, then he was astonishingly lucky in managing to assassinate JFK. When wandering around Mexico City allegedly threatening to shoot Kennedy, Oswald would not have been aware that the POTUS was about to visit Dallas. He could obviously have never guessed at that time that JFK was going to drive slowly past Oswald’s place of work. Everything was falling into place. His Carcano would have been nobody’s first choice as a sniper rifle, and there is no evidence Oswald had been practising with it, but for all that he managed to find a quiet spot on the 6th floor to assemble it (some have suggested with a small coin) and take aim. The fact the parade was 15 minutes late could not have been known to Oswald up in his eerie but that also was a stroke of good fortune.

                  Which proves that there was no conspiracy. No plan. You’ve made that very clear Cobalt.

                  Oswald was a fair shot we can assume, but even he must have been impressed by the accuracy of two of his shots: one dead centre in the back and a more difficult shot (given JFK had slumped) which struck JFK in the head, presumably causing near instant death. His luck continued for a while for after this monstrous act. Oswald was able to hide the rifle (why bother?) pop down to the lunch room for a cola and then walk out the front door of the TSBD to catch that well known method of escape for the assassin: a public transport bus. For whatever reasons, the Gods were with him that Dallas morning.

                  I don’t know whether he was impressed at hitting 2 out of 3 shots, missing the first one when the President was closest? But again, you’re just proving why there was clearly no plot. A disaffected Oswald took a rifle that he provably owned and lied about more than once. He lied about not knowing that Kennedy coming, making the politically savvy Oswald the only person in Dallas that wasn’t aware. He lied about eating lunch with Junior Jarman. Two men in on the floor above heard the shots coming from the floor below them and the shell casings hitting the floor. Brennan saw a man answering to Oswald’s description in that window with a rifle. He left his prints on the gun, on the boxes and on the packaging and he failed a paraffin test. He fled the scene of the crime which an innocent man wouldn’t have done. He takes a crazy route, completely avoiding a bus that could have dropped him outside his door. He kills a police officer and attacks another one pulling a gun. And when he’s arrested he lies and lies and also refuses a polygraph test.

                  If this was an episode of Columbo it would have been over in 5 minutes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                    Crazy is a fair summation of that theory. I can only guess that such theories are ventilated in order to discredit those who question the Lone Gunman Theory, to taint them by association as it were.
                    Amazing…..you even blame non-conspiracy theorists for the insane theories that conspiracy theorists come up with. It was a typical conspiracy theory, par for the course, no madder than the idiotic conspiracy theory that Kennedy’s wounds were altered on Airforce One. Or the idiotic conspiracy theory that the Zapruder film was altered so that it didn’t show the driver of the Presidents car turn around and shoot him. Or the insane conspiracy theory that the killer was in a storm drain. Or the insane conspiracy theory that the Killer had a loaded umbrella. Or the insane conspiracy theory that Woody Harrelson’s dad was one of the snipers. Or perhaps the dozens of people that have been proposed as or that have admitted to being the killer. Or that Ruby killed Kennedy. Or that Tippit killed Kennedy. Or Jim Garrison’s army of snipers.

                    Sorry Cobalt but conspiracy theorists have absolutely cornered the market in madness so they should complain when others don’t take what they say at face value.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      There's a crazy theory, apparently debunked, that while Oswald was indeed attempting to assassinate Kennedy, the fatal shot was 'friendly fire' from a Secret Service agent traveling directly behind the presidential car; the theory goes that the agent had been issued a new and unfamiliar firearm that week, and embarrassed by this mishap, the government hushed it up.

                      I casually ran this past a friend of mine who has studied the case in far, far greater detail than I ever have, and he dismissed it at once. Maybe some here have heard about it. I don't endorse it--I just never heard about it until recently.

                      The odds seem a little...remote.
                      It was a guy called Bonar Menninger, Roger. Sadly one in a long, and ever-increasing line of loonies.

                      Comment


                      • The CIA is like the Freemasons; a group you join for life irrespective of your active or passive participation. HS is very relaxed about the CIA lying and obstructing the Warren Commission but becomes very moralistic when he identifies Oswald as doing the same. When the CIA lie they are being careful; when Oswald lies it means he is guilty.

                        I’ve offered about four opportunities to HS to explain why Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City a month before the assassination. On each occasion he merely reiterates the Bugliosi line that Oswald was himself in Mexico City which is a separate, disputable point. As far as I am aware the impersonation of Oswald is established by a memo from J. Edgar Hoover (on 22nd November 1963 no less) and subsequent enquiries from the House Committee and has not been disputed.


                        Perhaps HS misread my paragraphs on Oswald being lucky. They were intended to show the improbability of a lone gunman being so graced with good fortune. So improbable that an episode of Columbo, far less running for 5 minutes, would not have even used such a script for fear of losing the audience.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                          The CIA is like the Freemasons; a group you join for life irrespective of your active or passive participation. HS is very relaxed about the CIA lying and obstructing the Warren Commission but becomes very moralistic when he identifies Oswald as doing the same. When the CIA lie they are being careful; when Oswald lies it means he is guilty.

                          No. If the CIA lied, they were guilty of trying to cover up their link to Oswald. It doesn’t follow that they were a part of a conspiracy. Oswald lying about curtain rods, at the very least, proves he was guilty of being involved in the assassination.

                          I’ve offered about four opportunities to HS to explain why Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City a month before the assassination. On each occasion he merely reiterates the Bugliosi line that Oswald was himself in Mexico City which is a separate, disputable point. As far as I am aware the impersonation of Oswald is established by a memo from J. Edgar Hoover (on 22nd November 1963 no less) and subsequent enquiries from the House Committee and has not been disputed.


                          Perhaps HS misread my paragraphs on Oswald being lucky. They were intended to show the improbability of a lone gunman being so graced with good fortune. So improbable that an episode of Columbo, far less running for 5 minutes, would not have even used such a script for fear of losing the audience.

                          And again, it shows why no one would create a conspiracy in those circumstances.

                          Why should I respond to “why Oswald was being impersonated Cobalt when he wasn’t being impersonated. As the evidence shows.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            He’s a clown. Bugliosi was picking his bones out of his teeth.
                            I don’t want to post again tonight because I'm off to a barbecue but I will again prove (not that it needs proving because we can all see it in black and white) that I'm the one who actually answers questions whilst others simply dodge, duck and obfuscate (although I have to at least admit the Cobalt has answered some) So….Edwin Lopez report….and yes, I’ve in part consulted Bugliosi too with apologies to George and Fishy but I just can’t help looking from both sides. Unlike some.

                            Let’s not forget that Lopez concluded that: “ the Warren Commission correctly established that Oswald had travelled to Mexico City.” He also said: “While the majority of the evidence tends to indicate that [the individual who visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy on the dates in question] was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald, the possibility that someone else used Lee Harvey Oswald’s name during this time in contacts with the Soviet and Cuban consulates cannot be absolutely disproven.”

                            Nowhere in his report though does he explain to its readers why an imposter would visit those consulates to do just what Oswald did at the same time that Oswald was there (which there is a mass of evidence to support) and as these consulates were just 2 blocks apart what are the chances of them either, not bumping into each other or having an embassy worker say” “hold on, weren’t you here half an hour ago?”

                            Mr. Lopez then comes up with an impersonator story which George’s mate Bugliosi says was: “so far out a hundred fertile minds sitting in a room for an entire week with the express purpose of thinking up impersonator stories wouldn’t think of it.” He raises the ‘possibility’ that the impersonator was ‘one of Oswald’s companions in Mexico City. Bugliosi also adds: “To think our tax money went into the preparation of the Lopez Report.”

                            Lopez then claims that the CIA probably had a surveillance photograph of Oswald but hinted that the CIA suppressed it or them (without evidence of this of course) but he didn’t say why they would have wanted to do this. Lopez believes that some maverick element of the CIA was trying to set Oswald up for the assassination. But it has to be asked, if these CIA mavericks were trying to set up Oswald for the assassination by alleging that he was a Cuban or Soviet agent why would they suppress the very evidence that would have strengthened the claim (photos of Oswald entering those embassies.)

                            Lopez seems a bit of a strange person. He was a big fan of a conspiracy theorist famous for his obsession with Bob Dylan (he used to root around in Dylan’s bins) At the London trial he claimed to know the identity of the gunman but wouldn’t disclose it because he said that he was on an oath with the HSCA. He said that there was an actual photograph of the assassin shooting Kennedy but that they couldn’t get there hands on it and the CIA and FBI wouldn’t let them interview the mystery gunman. Needless to say, this photograph hasn’t surfaced. Lopez was only 21 with no law enforcement investigation training by the way. He believes that this mystery man was being used by the CIA, the FBI and Castro but that none of these 3 knew about the other agencies. But this 21 student did of course. At the trial he offered to explain why but Bugliosi ran out of his time allowance but suggested that the Defence Counsel Gerry Spence could ask. Spence didn’t bother asking. Clearly Lopez wasn’t coming across well after Bugliosi picked him apart.

                            And quickly on that nonsense about the famous photograph of the Oswald impostor. It’s easily explained. The Mexico City CIA let CIA headquarters know that a man identifying himself as Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy asking if there were any messages for him. He was told that there wasn’t. David Phillips told that the CIA didn’t have a photograph of Oswald in their Mexico City files. The guy in the photograph looked North American whilst the others were Latin so they assumed incorrectly that this was Oswald.


                            Comment


                            • Hoover also said it wasn’t Oswald’s voice on the October 1st tape recording of the call to the Soviet Embassy.
                              Blakey has speculated that the CIA did in fact take photographs of Oswald in Mexico City but withheld them because he was accompanied by another person.

                              (Imagining Herlock reaching out again for his copy of Reclaiming History)

                              JM
                              Last edited by jmenges; 02-24-2023, 08:41 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Yes, and the tapes were claimed to be destroyed yet others claim to have heard them later and reached the same conclusion: that the crap speaker of pidgen Russian was not Oswald.

                                HS is freely entitled to dismiss evidence same as anyone else but he has to be careful. One point he makes against the conspiracy is that it would have involved too many people to have survived the challenge of time: doctoring photos, medical records, editing witness statements etc. Yet in order to discredit the 'Oswald impersonated in Mexico City' story he is walking into that same quagmire of a vast conspiracy involving J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI agents who heard the tapes, the operatives who transcribed the tapes, presumably the CIA chief in Mexico City and a few embassy staff as well who described someone quite different from Oswald. That's before we search for the imaginary 'companion' of Oswald who, according to Bugliosi, might have been impersonating him. I thought Oswald was a disaffected loner? It's starting to get complicated.

                                The Mexico City story is a real problem for those who accept the LG theory since it flags up a conspiracy of some sort. And according to them there was no conspiracy so it is difficult to handle.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X