JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Strangely enough battlefield rarely have a bloke there with a video camera so I’m afraid I can’t produce footage of a soldier being shot on The Somme.

If you know of such a battlefield Steven Spielberg perhaps you can find the footage? And not from a movie by the way.

You've never seen moving footage of people being shot from behind?

I have seen many such recordings from the Second World War, including footage of massacres carried out by Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union.

Are you saying you have never seen such footage of people being shot from behind?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I am amazed that not only do you claim that I omitted Ted Callaway's evidence but that you should insinuate that I did so deliberately.

Anyone can view my # 1005 and see the following:

(6) Ted Callaway testified that the killer was wearing a light-brown tan jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a brown jacket. Calloway made a prejudiced statement about the way Oswald was dressed when he identified him: 'He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.' A more reasonable explanation is that he was someone else or even that he had taken it off at the police station.


You have reproduced a photograph of a light grey jacket, apparently claiming that it was Oswald's.

Callaway claimed that Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket.

It is beyond me how you can think that Callaway's evidence was not problematic and could have been used against Oswald when there is no evidence that Oswald even owned a light brown jacket.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

Sorry, Abby, but I don't understand your line of argument.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

In that case, will you answer the following points I have made:

The SBT is proven beyond all reasonable doubt ONLY after the entrance wound in Kennedy's back has been raised by about five inches and the downwards angle of entry of that shot substantially reduced - as shown by the Commission's illustrations and photographs - from the 45-60 degrees established during the autopsy.

THEN everything lines up.

I don't think you have any answer to that.

(# 999)


Will you be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?
(# 1017)


You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

(# 1019)

I asked you to produce historical evidence from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind.
You suggested I argue with the scientists who, you claim, have proved that it is possible.
I don't mind who answers the question - whether you or the scientists - but neither you nor any scientist can produce such evidence - because it does not exist.

(# 1023)


You've never seen moving footage of people being shot from behind?

I have seen many such recordings from the Second World War, including footage of massacres carried out by Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union.

Are you saying you have never seen such footage of people being shot from behind?

(# 1051)



I would estimate that most people here have seen such footage and will recall that invariably in such cases the victim was thrown in the direction of the shot fired.

As Michael Kurtz noted, the same thing happened to Martin Luther King Jnr.


It is a basic question and I, suggest, one which you ought to answer.

I would suggest you need to answer the point about the entrance wound being raised by five inches, too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, will you answer the following points I have made:

The SBT is proven beyond all reasonable doubt ONLY after the entrance wound in Kennedy's back has been raised by about five inches and the downwards angle of entry of that shot substantially reduced - as shown by the Commission's illustrations and photographs - from the 45-60 degrees established during the autopsy.

THEN everything lines up.

I don't think you have any answer to that.

(# 999)


Will you be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?
(# 1017)


You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

(# 1019)

I asked you to produce historical evidence from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind.
You suggested I argue with the scientists who, you claim, have proved that it is possible.
I don't mind who answers the question - whether you or the scientists - but neither you nor any scientist can produce such evidence - because it does not exist.

(# 1023)


You've never seen moving footage of people being shot from behind?

Kennedy.

I have seen many such recordings from the Second World War, including footage of massacres carried out by Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union.

Are you saying you have never seen such footage of people being shot from behind?

(# 1051)



I would estimate that most people here have seen such footage and will recall that invariably in such cases the victim was thrown in the direction of the shot fired.

As Michael Kurtz noted, the same thing happened to Martin Luther King Jnr.


It is a basic question and I, suggest, one which you ought to answer.

I would suggest you need to answer the point about the entrance wound being raised by five inches, too

No I don’t because I’m not a cretin. Go ask Cyril Wecht. He’ll tell you that the two shots that hit Kennedy can have come from nowhere but behind.

Stop asking me to produce footage. I won’t be answering this silly, meaningless question and I’m not interested in anything that you have to say…….neither is anyone looking at how many people on these threads are willing to engage with you. Pretty much no one apart from me. That should tell you something.


.

How many different ways are you going to find to ask me the same stupid question? How many scientist testimonies do you require? Guinn, Petty a 32 page report, we’ve had military men and weapons experts who all tell us theat bullet shot victims don’t fly backwards like in the movies.

Just do me one favour……..go talk to someone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am amazed that not only do you claim that I omitted Ted Callaway's evidence but that you should insinuate that I did so deliberately.

Anyone can view my # 1005 and see the following:

(6) Ted Callaway testified that the killer was wearing a light-brown tan jacket. Oswald was not wearing a jacket and did not own a brown jacket. Calloway made a prejudiced statement about the way Oswald was dressed when he identified him: 'He had the same trousers and shirt, but he didn't have his jacket on. He had ditched his jacket.' A more reasonable explanation is that he was someone else or even that he had taken it off at the police station.


You have reproduced a photograph of a light grey jacket, apparently claiming that it was Oswald's.

Callaway claimed that Oswald was wearing a light brown jacket.

It is beyond me how you can think that Callaway's evidence was not problematic and could have been used against Oswald when there is no evidence that Oswald even owned a light brown jacket.

Typical conspiracist nitpicking.

Ignore a mound of inconvenient evidence but jump up and down over the difference between brown and grey. I draw for a living and I had to look twice to see if it was actually light brown or grey. It’s not important. Calloway wasn’t watching Oswald on the catwalk.

Just…….stop……typing…….pleeeeese.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've never seen moving footage of people being shot from behind?

I have seen many such recordings from the Second World War, including footage of massacres carried out by Nazi Germany in the Soviet Union.

Are you saying you have never seen such footage of people being shot from behind?

There’s a good chap.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many different ways are you going to find to ask me the same stupid question? How many scientist testimonies do you require? Guinn, Petty a 32 page report, we’ve had military men and weapons experts who all tell us theat bullet shot victims don’t fly backwards like in the movies.

Just do me one favour……..go talk to someone else.

You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

You will not say whether you have ever seen such footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory?

You will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Typical conspiracist nitpicking.

Ignore a mound of inconvenient evidence but jump up and down over the difference between brown and grey. I draw for a living and I had to look twice to see if it was actually light brown or grey. It’s not important. Calloway wasn’t watching Oswald on the catwalk.

Just…….stop……typing…….pleeeeese.

Again, I am amazed by your apparent indifference to crucial matters of evidence.

It matters very much whether the jacket allegedly discarded by Oswald was grey or brown.

Since you are supposedly so familiar with the evidence, you ought to know what colour the discarded jacket was, without even looking at the photograph of it.

Whether Callaway, who, like you, claimed that Oswald discarded his jacket, claimed it was grey or brown is vitally important.

You say he was an unproblematic witness.

I suggest he was a problematic witness because he said the man he saw wore a brown jacket, not a grey one.

He claimed Oswald wore a jacket of a colour which even according to the case against Oswald was wrong and which Oswald did not even own.


That is not nitpicking, but paying attention to detail.

You have made three mistakes: you have claimed that I omitted Callaway's evidence, that I did so deliberately, and that his evidence was consistent with the physical evidence, when it evidently was not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

No.

You will not say whether you have ever seen such footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory?

No.

You will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory?

No.

There. I’ve answered your question.

Then again……before giving those 3 in-depth answers, I should have said “I might do if you answer the question I posed earlier..”

Which was……Do you, Private Investigator 1 - poster on Casebook.Org (occupation unknown) - believe that your knowledge of physics and the reaction of a body during the transfer of weight of a moving bullet exceeds that of Drs Guinn and Petty? Or of the military weapons experts? Or that you have sufficient knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the 32 page report on this exact subject which confirms the opposite of your claims? Or to top it all off the opinions of Nobel Prize winning Physicist Luis Alvarez?

If your answer is ‘no.’ And it should be…..then stop asking me silly questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, I am amazed by your apparent indifference to crucial matters of evidence.

It matters very much whether the jacket allegedly discarded by Oswald was grey or brown.

Since you are supposedly so familiar with the evidence, you ought to know what colour the discarded jacket was, without even looking at the photograph of it.

Whether Callaway, who, like you, claimed that Oswald discarded his jacket, claimed it was grey or brown is vitally important.

You say he was an unproblematic witness.

I suggest he was a problematic witness because he said the man he saw wore a brown jacket, not a grey one.

He claimed Oswald wore a jacket of a colour which even according to the case against Oswald was wrong and which Oswald did not even own.


That is not nitpicking, but paying attention to detail.

You have made three mistakes: you have claimed that I omitted Callaway's evidence, that I did so deliberately, and that his evidence was consistent with the physical evidence, when it evidently was not.

How simple is this yet you can’t grasp it. For christs sake PI.

Witnesses can often make errors. Usually minor ones like this. When someone is passing you in the street you don’t write down a description of his clothing. A light brown and a light grey can look similar. I’m not colour blind but I’ve been known to pick up a coloured pencil and have had to ask someone “would you say that’s grey or blue?” Or other colours. That he said brown instead of grey is not a big issue except for a conspiracy theorist who sees every minor error as evidence of a plot.

The events after the Tippit murder are beyond dispute. Johnnie Brewer saw Oswald in the lobby of his store acting strangely after he’d heard about the murders of Tippit and Kennedy. There were police cars with sirens blaring going past toward the site of Tippits murder; this fact was confirmed by Postal. He followed Oswald and saw him with his own eyes enter the Theatre. Postal also saw him. That’s 2 people……neither of whom were idiots, liars or were on LSD at the time. Once inside Brewer checked the exits with Burroughs as suggested by Postal. Therefore Brewer, Postal and Burroughs all tie in perfectly and they were the main players….not Fred Smith munching popcorn at the back. The witnesses agreed what happened when the police arrested Oswald…. any trivial differences from anyone else. They watch Oswald……the man that they’d seen with their own eyes going in there….get arrested and led out. All else is irrelevant. This is black and white; completely open and shut. We know what happened. There is no mystery. Just move on. I’m sooooo tired of this nonsense.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

No.

You will not say whether you have ever seen such footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory?

No.

You will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory?

No.


There. I’ve answered your question.

Then again……before giving those 3 in-depth answers, I should have said “I might do if you answer the question I posed earlier..”

Which was……Do you, Private Investigator 1 - poster on Casebook.Org (occupation unknown) - believe that your knowledge of physics and the reaction of a body during the transfer of weight of a moving bullet exceeds that of Drs Guinn and Petty? Or of the military weapons experts? Or that you have sufficient knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the 32 page report on this exact subject which confirms the opposite of your claims? Or to top it all off the opinions of Nobel Prize winning Physicist Luis Alvarez?

If your answer is ‘no.’ And it should be…..then stop asking me silly questions.

You have just stated that you will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory.

You give no reason.

You refer to writings of two people which relate to other matters.



You then state that you will not say whether you have seen footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory.


You also say that you will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind.

You give no reason.



And yet you have alleged that I am arrogant!

You have consistently refused to address the question about the entrance wound being raised five inches because if you did so, you would have to admit that the Single Bullet Theory is a fraud.

You will not say whether you have seen the footage because you know that it destroys your argument that Kennedy was thrown backwards by a shot from behind.

You cannot cite any such moving footage because, as you know, it does not exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have just stated that you will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory.

You give no reason.

You refer to writings of two people which relate to other matters.



You then state that you will not say whether you have seen footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory.


You also say that you will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind.

You give no reason.



And yet you have alleged that I am arrogant!

You have consistently refused to address the question about the entrance wound being raised five inches because if you did so, you would have to admit that the Single Bullet Theory is a fraud.

You will not say whether you have seen the footage because you know that it destroys your argument that Kennedy was thrown backwards by a shot from behind.

You cannot cite any such moving footage because, as you know, it does not exist.

Ok

[FISHY1118]

‘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.

Another brilliant post , keep them coming . Its so refreshing to see common sense and facts destroy the fake autopsy head photo and magic bullet theory the WC defenders post .

Their defending their own conspiracy theory without even realizing it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And your contribution is……oh yeah….zilch. Keep cheerleading the fantasy Fishy.