JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Doctored Whatsit]

[I].

They shot Kennedy in broad daylight. Oswald the same with cameras all around.

Jack Ruby asked for, was given, and "passed with flying colours" a polygraph test. Although not 100% proof of his honesty, this does put a dent in any attempt to prove he conspired in any way. That he was telling the truth is more likely than the claim he lied.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I think that Fishy is referring to the fact that they reversed frames 314 and 315 so it looked like Kennedy's head had jerked forward. This is not conspiracy theory as the Magazine and Hoover acknowledged the error and apologised, blaming it on a printing mistake.

Cheers, George

So the fact that the brain matter is clearly shown to have shot forwards despite the fact that the car was travelling at about 11 miles per hour is not disputed?

[FISHY1118]

I admit to making mocking and sarcastic posts at times. I admit to derisory comments about conspiracy theorists. I admit to sometimes wording my criticisms too strongly and with a poor choice of wording.

So will Fishy (or George for that matter) make any similar admissions?

Just a few examples, from one poster, can we guess who?

Dont confuse ''conspiracy'' with ''contradiction'' as apoligist seem to always do


Without your usual hearsay, he said, or she said nonsense.


Your kidding right ? You tell him George, i cant waste time with with silly magic bullet theory that has so clearly been proven to be nonsense


This is what a desperate post looks like when all else fails


And the happy masses lapped it up because thats what they were told .


The answer was in Georges response it was that obvious a 3 year old would have spotted it


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


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



You exactly the type of person the warren commission knew would believe its garbage report , luck for them there are millions of you


Like a good Apoligist Theorist you added the extremley unlikely alternative


in the minds of the apologist theres nothing to see here


You wasted so much time for nothing, because imo you ignore and are quite possibly blinded by an obvious lack of knowledge and understanding of what was actually happening in the political area during that time .


all to familier trait of the JFK Apoligist way of thinking


Speaking of crap


Gullible again


Its embarrassing to see you defend the w.c rubbish .


Sad that you believe the lie you were fed by the W.C

, but your incapable of any understanding of fact from fiction in relation to the JFK assassination.


you just keep believing the WC rubbish like the rest of masses and we'll know like the rest, you too have been hoodwinked


you've seen the facts but choosen the lie


The W.C was written for people just like you


Ducking and weaving are their hallmarks George, especially when they can't accept the evidence and the facts


Based on your lack of understanding of evidence


but hey you'll ignore that too like you do everything else so far


you waffle on to much about nothing


. It was a masterpiece for the gullible it was designed to fool .


The perfect description of the Lone Gunman theorist we see on this topic


I knew our resident W.C sucker was wrong


i really couldnt be bothered with internet trolls anymore


hence the direct no reply to his sad already answered drival


but as for the trolls, ill try leaving them to you


As we can all see from the above..…you are a hypocrite of monumental proportions Fishy.

Yer i do wanna go there Herlock, as you totally ignored my post and went straight into George and Fishy mode. Typical.

Yes the 3 of us have gone tit for tat for weeks now and heres the thing tho, its the Conspiracy Theorist that was attacted in the first place for even suggesting such a thing with the JFK assassination. So you reaped what you have sown, you did, and continue to do exactly the same thing like on the Richardson thread and as recently on this thread where George pointed that very thing , ''offensive responses'' just for being of a different opinion to you .I watched Georges post, read them all and its really obvious to me and others [if their being honest], where he was very patient and always showed restraint ,always polite, never rude, put out his point of view and excepted others in return until you pushed him to far and dragged him into the **** fight ,really what choice did he have.

Please dont say you dont because its true. im not the only one saying it look around at the posters you attack just for simple having an opinion that differs from you?. Oh except our fearless leader Jon, where you lacked the courage to sink the same sharp claws into him that you sank into George and i .

Seeings how you avoided this part of my post which was a very simple request, lets give it a second try shall we. ?

Now all you have to do Herlock is call out Jon for having the same opinion as George and i ,give him the same sort of character assassination responses that you so desperately need to do to feel so much smarter than everyone else here . Go on, ill wait right here ,give it to him about his opinion that ''Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy'' as he posted recently , lets see if you got the nuts .

A hyporcrite you say ,well that easy to say now that weve exchanged insults back and forth for weeks now , but it neednt have even got to that point if you had of accepted, not necessarily having agreed with, mine and Georges and Cobalts and other right to believe in, and support a topic which we have shown enough evidence for all to see such belief is more than justified .

[Aethelwulf]

and support a topic which we have shown enough evidence for all to see such belief is more than justified .

No you haven't, in any way.

[GBinOz]

So the fact that the brain matter is clearly shown to have shot forwards despite the fact that the car was travelling at about 11 miles per hour is not disputed?

Doc, you know that nothing on this forum is "not disputed". When those still shots were released the public had never seen the film at full speed. After the release it was noticed that when the brain matter appeared to shoot forward, so did images in the back ground. It was realised that this was due to the fact that Zapruder was panning his camera so the lens was actually moving forward. The current thinking, accurate or in error, is that the initial movement of the head and brain matter was back and to the left as a frangible bullet hit, and then a smaller movement and of the head and some brain matter forward as the FMJ projectile hit from behind. This is supported by the audio analyse. Thompson explains it better than I here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8i-R3saBBs&ab_channel=ABC7NewsBayArea

Cheers, George

[jmenges]

I have to say that I’m opposed to the idea of encouraging members to attack one another, whether the suggested target helps moderate the boards or not. But that’s just me.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Doc,

I think that Fishy is referring to the fact that they reversed frames 314 and 315 so it looked like Kennedy's head had jerked forward. This is not conspiracy theory as the Magazine and Hoover acknowledged the error and apologised, blaming it on a printing mistake.

Cheers, George

Another falsehood. Now the facts.


On December 14th 1965 replied to a woman called Judith Schmidt, who was an assistant to conspiracy theorist Mark Lane, with this: “You are correct in the observation that frames labelled 314 and 315 of Commission Exhibit 885 are transposed in Volume 18 as noted in your letter. This is a printing error and does not exist in the actual Commission exhibit. For your information, the slides from which Commission Exhibit 885 was prepared are correctly numbered and are being shown in their correct sequence. The National Archives are aware of this printing error.”


Why do we keep having to resort to this kind of thing? Falsely labelling everything as fake or a forgery is simply a tactic. The Zapruder film is entirely genuine and intact; as are the x-rays and autopsy photos.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He's not known for that trait. Did you notice that "Apologist" is considered an insult, but not "Conspiracy theorist"? And Loonies, Childish, Infantile, Cowardly.....just stock in trade for the master of wit and repartee. Not a personal attack at all. But I wouldn't report his posts, as Jon suggests. I just chose to disengage from debate with the author and content myself with occasionally "taking the mickey" in a humorous way. I notice I am often on the opposite side of the argument with Frank, Jeff, Doc, Trevor, and sometimes even yourself, but the debate doesn't descend below the level of civilised. But Sir HS seems to be outraged by opinions that don't conform to his own, resorting to hyperbole, superlatives, disparagement and suggestions (in very large bold fonts) that his answers are so obviously 100% overwhelmingly correct that any further debate should just be closed down. I wonder what he might have said to Bugliosi about his comment on the RFK assassination: "This conspiracy might ultimately make Watergate look like a one-roach marijuana bust".

Cheers, George

On your point about ‘conspiracy theorist’ versus ‘apologist. When I went through the thread I treated them equally and counted them both. Why do you object to one but are ok with the other? I haven’t made a single post that could be considered by anyone as nasty and certainly not vitriolic. Sarcastic…yes, mocking….yes but no more than Fishy’s remark which you don’t just turn a blind eye to you actually congratulate him on. And then there are your sarcastic, snide and mocking comments. Ok I suppose? It’s always one-sided George.

…….

Bugliosi’s comment on the RFK assassination by the way couldn’t really illustrate better that he wasn’t ideologically or rigidly against the concept of conspiracy. He simply investigated the crime in minute detail and came to the conclusion that Oswald was the Lone Assassin. Naturally he gets accused of being a liar or of being ‘in on it.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jack Ruby asked for, was given, and "passed with flying colours" a polygraph test. Although not 100% proof of his honesty, this does put a dent in any attempt to prove he conspired in any way. That he was telling the truth is more likely than the claim he lied.

And the ‘innocent’ Lee Harvey Oswald refused to take one Doc.

[caz]

Finally a post from someone who understood what was happening at the time that resulted in the assassination of jfk , and hasn't got his head in the sand as to the fact it continues still today , its called politics and absolute power and total control . Well done

Hi FISHY,

You do realise that you have now agreed with several different, mutually exclusive conspiracy theories, as expressed by posters who all have their own ideas concerning what they believe may have happened, who did what and why.

Risible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yer i do wanna go there Herlock, as you totally ignored my post and went straight into George and Fishy mode. Typical.

Yes the 3 of us have gone tit for tat for weeks now and heres the thing tho, its the Conspiracy Theorist that was attacted in the first place for even suggesting such a thing with the JFK assassination. So you reaped what you have sown, you did, and continue to do exactly the same thing like on the Richardson thread and as recently on this thread where George pointed that very thing , ''offensive responses'' just for being of a different opinion to you .I watched Georges post, read them all and its really obvious to me and others [if their being honest], where he was very patient and always showed restraint ,always polite, never rude, put out his point of view and excepted others in return until you pushed him to far and dragged him into the **** fight ,really what choice did he have.

Please dont say you dont because its true. im not the only one saying it look around at the posters you attack just for simple having an opinion that differs from you?. Oh except our fearless leader Jon, where you lacked the courage to sink the same sharp claws into him that you sank into George and i .

Seeings how you avoided this part of my post which was a very simple request, lets give it a second try shall we. ?

Now all you have to do Herlock is call out Jon for having the same opinion as George and i ,give him the same sort of character assassination responses that you so desperately need to do to feel so much smarter than everyone else here . Go on, ill wait right here ,give it to him about his opinion that ''Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy'' as he posted recently , lets see if you got the nuts .

A hyporcrite you say ,well that easy to say now that weve exchanged insults back and forth for weeks now , but it neednt have even got to that point if you had of accepted, not necessarily having agreed with, mine and Georges and Cobalts and other right to believe in, and support a topic which we have shown enough evidence for all to see such belief is more than justified .

Facts.


This particular debate began when the thread re-started on 5th February. You made the first post which was #169. I responded post 172. No insults or anything.

The first ‘mocking’ post was actually by Wulf #180. Nothing nasty though of course though. Completely harmless but if I’d have said it I would have been accused of something.

The first condescending post was by George in post #186 where he kindly informed me that I needed to look at the evidence rather than just believing what I’m told (that advice clearly doesn’t apply to himself though but hey..)

The first accusation in the debate was by, guess who? You Fishy. In post# 190 when you accused me of deliberately avoiding a point of yours.

The first piece of sarcasm? Well waddya know? From the same post you add the sarky “But most of us already new that.” In a post that was a direct response to mine.

In my response, the ‘worst’ thing that I say is in response to your claim that some point was proven by asking “are you making that up?”

You respond by accusing be of making a ‘ridiculous statement,’

The first direct ‘insult’ (though certainly a mild one) came from? Fishy. Post # 213. “

“As has been suggested Apoligist Theorists rarely know or can tell the difference . Your question regarding the reason for ''displaying a second rifle when a different one was used'' shows this to be the case.”

Now let’s check the for the second derogatory comment shall we? Oh there it is, post #214 by…..yup, Fishy, describing my post as nonsense.

Third derogatory comment (with a bit of hypocrisy thrown in)? Fishy #216 telling me that I should research before commenting. The hypocrisy is a cracker though. He criticise me for criticising a single point made in a book that I haven’t read (with documentary) and yet George and he regularly and numerously slate and insult Vincent Bugliosi when neither have read his book. One rule for them though I guess.

In #239 Fishy insultingly tells me that I’m not interested in proven facts.

Then following a long, detailed post from me with not a single comment directed at any poster Fishy responds to it with the sarcastic post #241.

Even the first use of was by….Fishy.

And you don’t confine it to me. Look at this friendly response to Wulf: “What are you blind wulf ? , read the article for yourself, I'm not doing your reading for you . You should take the year off .”

……….


Proof that your “well you started” is simply untrue. You try and whitewash reality. The evidence is in black and white. I accept and acknowledge the things that I shouldn’t have said but you and George give yourselves a free pass time and time again. I haven’t made a single ‘nasty’ post on this thread. Not one. Not even close to it. I’ve made one post that I regret but that’s all. And George accuses me of ‘vitriol.’ Has anyone ever heard a greater deliberate exaggeration? If some posters weren’t so utterly possessed by their own opinions that they can’t accept the opinions of others we would get occasions where poster burst into tears at every piece of sarcasm. Do you both act like this when talking face to face. Someone makes a sarcastic response and you run out of the room weeping? Adults don’t weep and complain a bit of mockery and sarcasm. I never once complained about yours or George’s. I only commented in response to yours and George’s tantrums.


It’s there in black and white Fishy. Perhaps I’ve faked yours and George’s entries and hidden my own? Or somehow managed to change the order of posts?

…….

Now, you and George can ignore my posts if you want, I’m past caring, but we could all do without the false accusations and avoidance tactics. The best way forward is simply to make points about the case without wasting time and clogging up the threads with baseless, time wasting and tedious complaints.

[Pcdunn]

His brother Robert, he died in 2013, but he was convinced of Oswald’s guilt. When asked about it in 2004 he said in an interview with ABCNews: “To me, his psyche at that particular time, he was basically saying "I'm smarter than you. You gotta catch me. I'm gonna tell you no, I didn't do anything. You've got to prove to me, and then I'm still gonna outsmart you.” When asked about Oswald’s “I’m a patsy” comment he said in the same interview: “It means zero. It's a continuation of Lee's personality. He's telling everybody, "I'm still in command here. They got the wrong guy, and they're not gonna be able to prove it." He is still in command, OK? That's what he wants to do. He's gonna show up the authorities no matter who they were that he knew what they wanted to know. He's the center of attention. That's where he wants to be. That's where he is, and he's gonna play it for all it was worth.”

Ruth Paine, who knew them both well, said that Oswald was the kind of man who believed that he was cleverer or better than others. Someone who thought that he wasn’t appreciated enough. And although I can’t produce any quotes at the moment I seem to recall a member of the Russian emigré community or two, when asked if he was the type to do what he’d done, say yes.

He was the time that didn’t mix much. He beat his wife. He was a miser. He defected. He came back. He wanted to return. He had a short fuse. This isn’t ‘just a normal guy.’

Donald Bellarsio, the creator of the original television series "Quantum Leap", was another person who had met Oswald and believed he was capable of the assassination. Bellarsio remembered Oswald from military camp, where the latter had little interaction with comrades, except to push Communist literature on them. He also got the impression that Oswald thought he was smarter than everyone else.

Later, "Quantum Leap" featured an episode of the time travel series focusing on the JFK assassination.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Donald Bellarsio, the creator of the original television series "Quantum Leap", was another person who had met Oswald and believed he was capable of the assassination. Bellarsio remembered Oswald from military camp, where the latter had little interaction with comrades, except to push Communist literature on them. He also got the impression that Oswald thought he was smarter than everyone else.

Later, "Quantum Leap" featured an episode of the time travel series focusing on the JFK assassination.

All of the people who said this kind of thing about Oswald are ignored or accused of lying Pat. People should watch Ruth Paine at the London Trial and ask themselves if she comes across as dishonest? She certainly doesn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The 2 biggest claims from those on the conspiracy side is that, a) Kennedy and Connolly were struck by two separate bullets. And b) that the Kennedy headshot was from the front and side (the usual suggested location is the Grassy Knoll of course) rather than from behind.

Point a) of course is illustrated by the claim that the bullet that hit both men would have had to have been a ‘magic bullet’ zig-zagging around. But those theorists have a ‘magic bullet’ of their own of course. They usually show a diagram showing that the line of the bullet moving downward from the 6th floor, after hitting Kennedy, would have passed by the right shoulder of Governor Connolly. The point that they can’t answer though is when it’s pointed out that the very same diagram and trajectory shows that, if it indeed had missed Connally, it would have struck the agent in the passenger seat of the limousine. So the conspiracy theorists have a bullet which hits Kennedy, misses Connally on a downward and to the left trajectory, the stops and moves sharp,y upward to fly over the agents head and out into the either never to be found.

On point b) I’m not going to revisit old ground (about conspiracy theorists who favour witnesses who would have had least opportunity to judge the wound location accurately over the ones that did have that opportunity and explicit aim) except to refer to one of the best known, and most widely respected conspiracy theorists, Dr. Cyril Wecht. Wecht is referenced in every book and I think that I’m not exaggerating when I say that there’s rarely a conspiracy documentary where Wecht doesn’t make an appearance.

Where Wecht differs from non-conspiracy theorists is that he believes that Kennedy and Connally were hit by 2 separate bullets. But Wecht, despite being critical of the autopsy (which was certainly not free from error) is absolutely in agreement that the two shots (the so-called magic bullet and the head shot bullet) came from behind. So even Wecht isn’t ‘conspiracy’ enough for conspiracy theorists. In the London Trial (which I’d encourage everyone to watch even if just to see the people that were around at the time like Buell Frazier and Ruth Paine) Bugliosi (oops, I mentioned the hated name) confronted Wecht with a piece of paper. Watch Wecht squirm when he himself was quoted as saying that there were no shots from anywhere but from behind. He changed his mind….nothing wrong with that…..but not on the location of the entrance wounds. Both shots from behind. And against this we get cries of “fake Zapruder film.” “Fake autopsy photos.” “Fake x-rays.” There’s not a scintilla of evidence for fakery folks. None. It’s a little bit embarrassing in fact.

[jmenges]

It’s also been suggested that there were two nearly simultaneous head shots, from the rear and the side.
I think that’s what Josiah Thompson proposes.

JM