JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

(2) Jack Tatum said Tippit's killer wore a light zippered jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and the discarded one allegedly worn by him was brown.

.

A photo of the said jacket.



From a website dedicated entirely to the murder of JD Tippit.

“Oswald was last seen cutting through a parking lot behind a Texaco Service station two blocks from the shooting scene. A gray zipper jacket was found there by police.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t have time to go through all of the witnesses to Tippit’s murder which gives you a chance, in light of the above posts, to do a little jig and shout “he can’t answer, he can’t answer,” whilst licking your wounds. The Tippit witnesses were far from perfect. Helen Markham particularly is problematic in some of the things that she said. But many weren’t. Ted Calloway for instance (who you ‘forgot’ to mention) He was also at the London Trial and came across as a sensible, reliable man (conspiracy theorists would no doubt hate him for that reason.)

Im off to a barbecue later so I’ll look forward to some embarrassing contortions and twisting from you ( I bet your cooking up some at this very moment) with a bit of avoidance and obfuscation thrown in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would imagine being struck by a bullet in the head is similar to being struck by a powerful boxer: the head movement will always be backwards. Some boxers buckle at the knees and fall face down when knocked out but I have never seen one whose head moves towards the source of the impact.

Regarding the cinema it seems that although around 24 tickets were sold that day only 8 customers were in the main area at the time of Oswald's arrest. And we know the names of three: John Gibson, Jack Davis and George Applin. Applin claimed in the late 1970s that Jack Ruby was there at the time but I don't think there is much to back this up. Ruby was at Parkland around 1.30 according to Seth Kantor, 20 minutes before the arrest. And as a well known figure locally surely some other person or police officer would have noticed Ruby.

The police made no record of those at the cinema at the time of Tippits murder and just after. The only one’s that we have evidence of their presence are the manager Callahan, Portal in the ticket offices, Burroughs at the confectionary counter and Brewer who walked there from his shoe store. All the others that you mention we only have their word for. The one’s that I mention - 3 of them worked at the cinema and 2 of them confirmed exactly what Brewer said. Callahan had driven away by that time. I’m unsure at the moment about who Gibson and Applin were but Davis was first mentioned by Jim Marrs 25 years later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just had a quick read of Applin’s WC testimony and an additional shorter statement and also Gibson’s WC testimony. What they said tied in with the ‘official’ version of events in the Theatre. Any variations are trivial and very minor. They were both there and saw Oswald being arrested as described.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

As to Hargis, I interpret that his first and instinctive reaction to what he heard, saw & felt was that he thought he might have been hit by a bullet or fragment of it, but that he only thought that for a moment and then, seeing that he was spattered with blood and such, realized it had been debris from president’s head shot, which had come up from the president’s head and then down over him.

Even if they didn’t say the top of the head, they both had it right enough, as far as I’m concerned. In his interview with Jim Garrison’s staffers in 1968 Hargis stated that he couldn’t actually see what part of the head got hit, but he was able to see that it wasn’t the rear part but a part on “the other side”. To me, the Zapruder film shows clear enough that the right side exploded, a part from the ear forward. It also clearly shows the back of the president’s head, behind the right ear, which remained intact.


I’ve found a witness who mentioned that there was a north wind blowing: James Altgens. He stated in his deposition for the W.C.: “Mrs. Kennedy was looking at me at the time, just as I got ready to snap it the north wind got her hat and nearly blew it off, so she raised her left hand to hat and I did not get her looking into the camera, but I got the Governor and Mrs. Connally and the President with the President waving into the camera.”

At the time he was standing on the west side of Houston Street and the wind he was speaking of would have blown along Houston Street, from the TSBD in his direction. I’ve read here that the force was between 15 and 20 mph: Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Acoustics ... - United States. Congress. House. Select Committee on Assassinations - Google Boeken.
It reads: “The weather bureau recorded winds in Dallas on November 22, 1963, as ranging only between 13 and 17 knots, which is roughly equal to 15 to 20 miles per hour.”


Okay, so what was changed from frame 313 and after according to these experts? And what evidence did they produce to back up that conclusion?


I have to say that I don’t believe the McClelland diagram for 2 reasons. Number one is that he wrote on the diagram that he didn’t see 2 of the wounds and, more importantly, number two is that his view doesn’t correspond to the Zapruder film or Hargis’s statement made to Jim Garrison’s staff members, or Clint Hill – people we know for a fact to have seen the president’s head explode and Hill also got occasion to see the president’s head while he was shielding the president and his wife with his body right after the fatal shot.



OK, you say the second head shot from the rear would have produced a far smaller exit wound, but you didn’t say where it’s supposed to have been and I’m quite sure the bullet must have exited some place and left a trace separate from the other shot. So, where was this exit wound, according to you?

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

While I don't dispute some of your narrative, we appear to be looking at it differently.





To me McClelland's diagram is consistent with the Hargis description, from his perspective, as a "part on the other side". It also appears to be consistent with Clint Hill's recollection.

When a frangible projectile stikes a skull it would create a blood cloud that could be taken by the wind into the path of Hargis. But as it fragments inside the skull the heavier brain matter and bone fragments are taken in the direction of flight (Newton's third law of momentum.) This would be towards Hargis. The Harper bone fragment was found in this cone some 50 feet away.

I have been looking at the ZP frames from 313 and there appears to be a flap of skin visible. I wondered if it was a flap of his scalp. This photo suggests that it may well have been a flap of scalp that was used, according to boswell, to cover a large area of missing bone in the rear of JFK's head.



The alterations to the film were supposedly touch-ups to conceal the location of the wound to the head, which was large, whichever version is selected. The evidence just their expertise in the field. Here is what the WC proposed:



Here is what Boswell said:





This is another WC proposal, but with the top of the head blown off. That is what I would select for the second heat shot - but with no gaping entrance wound as proposed by Boswell.



The exit wound for the second head shot. That's the question that gave Hume an Co. problems. They ended up deciding that it was concealed by missing bone fragments, so, not having been there, I guess I'll have to accept that, but without the 17cm entry wound, until a better solution is reached. In all my years of hunting I have never seen a large entry wound with a small exit wound.

My conclusion: a frangible projectile from the grassy knoll, entrance in right temple, exit right occipital. A second shot with a Full Metal Jacket military round from the rear a fraction of a second after the first head shot, entrance in exit wound from first shot, exit in hair above forehead as postulated by Hume (for now).

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is simply no evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered in any way. A reversal of frames was mentioned as a way of altering perception but I posted the explanation of this straight from Hoover to Mark Lane’s assistant which naturally was ignored.

McClelland keeps getting trotted out in an exercise in selective witness analysis. Again, on the afternoon of the assassination he wrote in a report/note logged at 4.45 that Kennedy was hit on the side of his head with no mention of a wound to the back of his head. How can this be ignored? He then decided to move his identification of the wound to the back of the head. When questioned by Bugliosi over a series of phone calls he admitted that the diagram, used above, was ‘misleading’ and that the wound was more to the side. Then, as per the video posted by George, he appears to have changed his mind again. How can this man be held up as one of the main props in the theory of a gaping wound to the back of the head.

There was no film or photograph trickery. Numerous tests have been done and there isn’t a scintilla of a hint of anything underhand. Conspiracy theorists love and hate the Zapruder film. They love it because we can see Kennedy’s head going back (but not the harder to see but definitely there forward head movement) but on the other hand they hate it because of the complete and utter absence of this mythical, gaping back-of-the-head wound. Why didn’t the fakers simply fake a back of the head wound? Like the plotters the fakers were clearly idiots.



They also both love and hate the Mary Moorman photo (taken around a second after the headshot). They love it when they point to the Rorschach ink blot ‘Badgeman’ in the bushes but they hate it when they see no mythical, gaping back-of-the-head wound.



Are there any other cases that can we name where there is such a Mount Everest of evidence that is simply dismissed by cries of ‘forgery?’ It’s beyond weak and it’s certainly not simply ‘error.’ It’s absolutely deliberate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When asked if he could have been mistaken under the circumstances, Dr. Carrico said:”Absolutely.”

And Crenshaw is in the Virgil ‘Ed’ Hofmann league of barking mad witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In a 1992 interview with JAMA Drs Jenkins, Baxter, Perry and Carrico all admitted that their experience at Parkland did not qualify them to arrive at conclusions about whether wounds were of exit or entry.

Its worth noting that many of those present were young and inexperienced. Petty had only just completed his residency and Carrico was still a resident. Why were there so many inexperienced staff in the Trauma Room on the day of the assassination? Nearly all of the senior Parkland Doctors were attending a conference in Galveston.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’ve achieved something here. You did well to get so much wrong. I took your advice and re-read the testimonies of Brewer, Postal and Burroughs.




Firstly, I didn’t say that the man ran into the theatre. Just because something incorrect is ‘oft-repeated’ doesn’t merit you mentioning it here as a distraction.

Let’s start with Brewer. (Directly from his testimony btw)

Johnny Brewer was manager of Harry’s Shoe Store (in case anyone isn’t familiar with him). On the afternoon of the 22nd, after he’d heard of the shooting of first Kennedy and then a police officer in the same neighbourhood as his store, he saw a man enter the lobby area of his store who with his back to the street. At that time, police cars were passing with sirens on heading in the direction of the Tippit shooting. As they passed, the man who Brewer calls Oswald in his statement, looked over his shoulder and then walked west toward the theatre. Brewer of course said that he didn’t know that this man was called Oswald at the time. He described him as: about 5 ft 9, about 150lbs. Brown hair, with a brown shirt on with the tail hanging out. No jacket and with a t-shirt (which Oswald had discarded in a car lot) but he couldn’t recall the colour of his trousers. Light complexion.

Brewer followed him, he thought that he’d been in his store before, but he looked like he’d been running and his hair was messed up but Brewer felt that he was behaving suspiciously (deliberately standing with his back to the passing police, messed up appearance etc) He saw Oswald walk into the Theatre. He asked Mrs Postal if she’d sold him a ticket and she said no, she was listening to events on the radio at the time. He asked Butch Burroughs if he’d seen the man enter but he hadn’t. He asked Burroughs to show him the exits on the suggestion of Postal because he thought the guy looked suspicious.

Brewer identified the man as Oswald. He clearly had no reason to lie and at the London Trial came across as an eminently sensible, intelligent man.

Now Julia Postal who was the woman in the ticket office.

Postal said that as sirens were still heard a around the time that police cars were passing her boss got into his car to see where they were going just as Oswald entered…she thought that they had passed each other but this can’t be confirmed so the probably just missed each other.. She then said:” This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and…I don’t know if you are familiar with the box office?”

Then: “Yes, and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face and he ducked in.” She went to the front entrance because of the commotion and that’s when she saw Johnny Brewer. She suggested that Brewer and Butch get the exits which ties in exactly with Brewer asking Burroughs the location of the exits. She then called the police and gave a description.

When asked, she described the positioning of the concession stall where Burroughs worked and that the way Oswald entered (at the other end by the stairs) ask it explained why he hadn’t seen Oswald enter. Kids often sneaked in that way. Apparently they kidded Butch at the time about missing Oswald and he at first said that he’d seen him going in but then admitted that he’d only seen him as he went out. She described Burroughs as an excitable type.

Burroughs was just the usher who worked the confectionary counter, not the manager as you stated. The manager was John A. Callahan. And your statement about him saying that Oswald was in the theatre before the Tippit murder is nonsense. Take your own advice and read his testimony.

Butch Burroughs, usher not manager.

When Burroughs testified he admitted that he had jobs to do like counting stock candy and putting it in a case. He agreed that if Oswald had gone in up the stairs he wouldn’t have seen him. He also confirmed what Brewer and Postal said about them checking the exits.

So…..reality…

These were the three witnesses directly involved. All tie in with each other perfectly. Stop making things up and stick to the evidence.


Jack Davis

Jack Davis is another conspiracist fantasist who didn’t come forward until he was dug up by conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs in 1988. One of the ‘2 Oswald’s’ brigade. A problem in part caused by Dallas Police who failed a list of those in the theatre at the time. We can’t even be sure that he was there. We can only confirm that Callahan, Brewer, Postal and Burroughs were actually there and should take with a massive pinch of salt the words of people who crawl out of the woodwork 20+ years later.


A point to note for everyone……why is it that every single ‘witness’ who comes forward years later is without fail one that conspiracy theorists rely on?

You write:


When Burroughs testified he admitted that he had jobs to do like counting stock candy and putting it in a case. He agreed that if Oswald had gone in up the stairs he wouldn’t have seen him. He also confirmed what Brewer and Postal said about them checking the exits.


You seem to be implying that he testified that he was too busy to have noticed the Oswald if he had entered the theater at the time that Brewer saw him enter.

In fact, he claimed the opposite:


if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast... He must have sneaked in and run on upstairs before I saw him.

His testimony agrees with what I claimed, that the Oswald could not have gone to the seating area when he entered the theater and must have gone upstairs instead.

That means he could NOT have been the man who was arrested in the seating area - Oswald - unless he went upstairs and then went downstairs to the seating area.

But Burroughs and Davis both reportedly claimed that the real Oswald changed his seat repeatedly and sat next to a different person each time.

Burroughs also claimed to have sold Oswald popcorn at about the time Tippit was shot.

All of this information, when taken together, suggests that the Oswald whom Brewer saw enter the theatre went upstairs and did not enter the seating area.

Consequently, he could not have been Oswald.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They also both love and hate the Mary Moorman photo (taken around a second after the headshot). They love it when they point to the Rorschach ink blot ‘Badgeman’ in the bushes but they hate it when they see no mythical, gaping back-of-the-head wound.

I have not seen anywhere else an estimate of that photo being taken a full second after the shot.

I have seen one-sixth of a second, a fraction of a second, about zero seconds, and even a minus figure, but never a whole second.

I did mention a policeman on a motorcycle - Bobby Hargis - who testified that he was spattered with blood and brain matter and thought that the shot came from in front of the motorcade.

He can be seen quite clearly in the photo, as can the windshield of his motorcycle.

Both he and the windshield were spattered with blood and brain matter, but it is clear in the photo that they are not.

It follows that Kennedy's head had not yet exploded at the moment that photo was taken.

It is therefore hardly surprising that no damage can be seen to the back of Kennedy's head in the photo.

[cobalt]

‘Are there any other cases that can we name where there is such a Mount Everest of evidence that is simply dismissed by cries of ‘forgery?’

What evidence? There was no criminal investigation into either the JFK or Tippit murders. There was no proper cross examination of eyewitnesses or experts.

The Warren Commission was established in order to prove the lone gunman theory, not to unearth the truth. So the conclusion of the WC investigation was decided before any ‘evidence’ was actually heard, a reversal of established procedure I would suggest. This is a matter of public record as stated by LBJ. All the evidence gathered was to be tailored to this end, much to the relief of the Dallas Police, the FBI and the CIA who were now effectively investigating themselves. The biggest security **** up since Caesar was stabbed in the Senate was, absurdly, being investigated by those guilty of criminal negligence, allegedly in the interests of national security. That is why, as Joseph McBride has explained clearly, questioning the LG theory has since become the responsibility of private citizens.

So it’s not so much a case of the WC bearing false witness, more a case of tailoring evidence and shaping the narrative. The ‘magic bullet’ theory is the most egregious example of this. Bugliosi, who came late to the game, was a lawyer so grasped this fully. His apparent ignorance of Oswald’s CIA connections is of a king, as is his dismissal of a conspiracy on the spurious grounds that any competent conspiracy would not have involved Oswald. The notion that a conspiracy might have been well organised and served up the hapless Oswald as a convenient ‘patsy’ seems to elude him. Much the same blindness applies to all the tainted ID evidence of Oswald, a man whose photo was being shown on national TV from midday onwards. He tells us Oswald lied about eating lunch with Junior Jarman; according to Fritz’s notes Oswald merely said that Jarman walked through the lunch room when he was eating. A minor point obviously (and Jarman did not remember seeing Oswald) but how is he so certain Oswald was lying? Bugliosi says Oswald alone ‘fled’ the scene. Fled? He was drinking a coke, walked out of the front door and even offered his taxi to an elderly woman. And four workers at the TSBD were unaccounted for up till 3pm, not just Oswald. This is how narratives are shaped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You write:


When Burroughs testified he admitted that he had jobs to do like counting stock candy and putting it in a case. He agreed that if Oswald had gone in up the stairs he wouldn’t have seen him. He also confirmed what Brewer and Postal said about them checking the exits.


You seem to be implying that he testified that he was too busy to have noticed the Oswald if he had entered the theater at the time that Brewer saw him enter.

In fact, he claimed the opposite:


if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast... He must have sneaked in and run on upstairs before I saw him.

His testimony agrees with what I claimed, that the Oswald could not have gone to the seating area when he entered the theater and must have gone upstairs instead.

That means he could NOT have been the man who was arrested in the seating area - Oswald - unless he went upstairs and then went downstairs to the seating area.

But Burroughs and Davis both reportedly claimed that the real Oswald changed his seat repeatedly and sat next to a different person each time.

Burroughs also claimed to have sold Oswald popcorn at about the time Tippit was shot.

All of this information, when taken together, suggests that the Oswald whom Brewer saw enter the theatre went upstairs and did not enter the seating area.

Consequently, he could not have been Oswald.

I’m not even going to waste many words on the pile.

Postal described how he could have missed Oswald.

He saw Oswald leave so he wasn’t beamed inside the Theatre by Scotty.

Postal and Brewer bother saw him enter the Theatre after Tippits murder had been on the radio and whilst cars with sirens blaring were passing (remember Tippit was killed in the same neighbourhood)

I’m tired of dishonesty. There could have been absolutely no possibility whatsoever under any circumstances that Brewer and Postal were wrong or lying.

Davis piped up 25 years later for Marrs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have not seen anywhere else an estimate of that photo being taken a full second after the shot.

I have seen one-sixth of a second, a fraction of a second, about zero seconds, and even a minus figure, but never a whole second.

I did mention a policeman on a motorcycle - Bobby Hargis - who testified that he was spattered with blood and brain matter and thought that the shot came from in front of the motorcade.

He can be seen quite clearly in the photo, as can the windshield of his motorcycle.

Both he and the windshield were spattered with blood and brain matter, but it is clear in the photo that they are not.

It follows that Kennedy's head had not yet exploded at the moment that photo was taken.

It is therefore hardly surprising that no damage can be seen to the back of Kennedy's head in the photo.

Utter bilge even by conspiracist fantasists standards. You even surprised me by this bottom of the barrel scraping. This was taken after the head shot. No doubt at all. You can even see spray.

Anyone that says that there was a massive, gaping head wound to the back of Kennedy’s head is either blind, a fantasist or a liar. Take your pick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Are there any other cases that can we name where there is such a Mount Everest of evidence that is simply dismissed by cries of ‘forgery?’

What evidence? There was no criminal investigation into either the JFK or Tippit murders. There was no proper cross examination of eyewitnesses or experts.

The Warren Commission was established in order to prove the lone gunman theory, not to unearth the truth. So the conclusion of the WC investigation was decided before any ‘evidence’ was actually heard, a reversal of established procedure I would suggest. This is a matter of public record as stated by LBJ. All the evidence gathered was to be tailored to this end, much to the relief of the Dallas Police, the FBI and the CIA who were now effectively investigating themselves. The biggest security **** up since Caesar was stabbed in the Senate was, absurdly, being investigated by those guilty of criminal negligence, allegedly in the interests of national security. That is why, as Joseph McBride has explained clearly, questioning the LG theory has since become the responsibility of private citizens.

So it’s not so much a case of the WC bearing false witness, more a case of tailoring evidence and shaping the narrative. The ‘magic bullet’ theory is the most egregious example of this. Bugliosi, who came late to the game, was a lawyer so grasped this fully. His apparent ignorance of Oswald’s CIA connections is of a king, as is his dismissal of a conspiracy on the spurious grounds that any competent conspiracy would not have involved Oswald. The notion that a conspiracy might have been well organised and served up the hapless Oswald as a convenient ‘patsy’ seems to elude him. Much the same blindness applies to all the tainted ID evidence of Oswald, a man whose photo was being shown on national TV from midday onwards. He tells us Oswald lied about eating lunch with Junior Jarman; according to Fritz’s notes Oswald merely said that Jarman walked through the lunch room when he was eating. A minor point obviously (and Jarman did not remember seeing Oswald) but how is he so certain Oswald was lying? Bugliosi says Oswald alone ‘fled’ the scene. Fled? He was drinking a coke, walked out of the front door and even offered his taxi to an elderly woman. And four workers at the TSBD were unaccounted for up till 3pm, not just Oswald. This is how narratives are shaped.

Delusional nonsense. Childish blather. Proven nonsense. I’m tired of listening to babyish crap.

Kennedy was hit by 2 shots from behind’

100% proven. Even Cyril bloody Wecht isn’t that much of a fool to deny it.

[Abby Normal]

I have not seen anywhere else an estimate of that photo being taken a full second after the shot.

I have seen one-sixth of a second, a fraction of a second, about zero seconds, and even a minus figure, but never a whole second.

I did mention a policeman on a motorcycle - Bobby Hargis - who testified that he was spattered with blood and brain matter and thought that the shot came from in front of the motorcade.

He can be seen quite clearly in the photo, as can the windshield of his motorcycle.

Both he and the windshield were spattered with blood and brain matter, but it is clear in the photo that they are not.

It follows that Kennedy's head had not yet exploded at the moment that photo was taken.

It is therefore hardly surprising that no damage can be seen to the back of Kennedy's head in the photo.

Its hardly surprising because the damage from fatal head shot was mainly to the right top side of his head. and the position of his body, jerked back and to the left also clearly shows this is just after it.

but im perplexed by what your arguing. isnt this all something we should expect from a fatal head shot from the grassy knoll area?