JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my answers below.

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.

That is not the point at all.

The point is that he got the colour badly wrong.

He said not only that the jacket was brown but that it was tan.

I suggest that had all the witnesses, including him, said that the suspect wore a grey jacket, you would be attaching rather more importance to colour than you are.

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;

That was about half an hour after Tippit's murder.

If Oswald had killed Tippit, what would he be doing outside Brewer's shop half an hour later?

That is not believable.


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.


It is not irrelevant that no-one saw the man who entered the theater go to the seating area.

You cited Burroughs' evidence.

He was definite that had that man gone to the seating area after entering the building, he would have noticed him doing so.

No witness has said that he or she saw the man go to the seating area.

Instead, Buroughs said that he sold Oswald popcorn at the time of Tippit's shooting and saw him changing his seat repeatedly, a detail mentioned by Davis too.

What a coincidence!

Do you think that means a conspiracy?



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.


We know what happened: Oswald was impersonated in Mexico by a blond man - sorry to mention colour again, but it is important in the identification of suspects - of about 30, who looked nothing like him, as stated by three witnesses.

Even J. Edgar Hoover admitted he was being impersonated.

He was impersonated in Dallas by two people who, unlike Oswald, drove cars.

It does not require a great leap of faith to see that the man who was seen by Brewer entering the theater was impersonating Oswald, which is why no-one saw him take a seat.

And you have no answer to that.

[cobalt]

‘Nit picking.’ The last resort of the man without detailed evidence. IP does well not to engage personally with HS but to confront his arguments. That is the best policy. Keep going. Rather like Sinatra, HS is always about to do his last tour. But he keeps coming back. A few hours ago he questioned whether Davis was ever in the Texas Theatre. Now he accepts this as fact since- guess what- the WC said so. The WC and Bugliosi are his bible, that much is clear. Faith before fact is his mantra.

I was accused recently that my boxing metaphor of the head moving towards the source of impact, unprecedented in boxing history, was wrong on the basis I had no expertise in this area. I respect experts but never to the extent they have the right to loot my common sense. I would recommend this approach to others.

Therefore I would offer any physics ‘expert’ the opportunity to go into the ring with Mike Tyson and disprove my wild claim. If his head is driven forward as Tyson inflicts brain damage I will accept the results as conclusive. HS is obviously invited to test the theory as well before he heads off to his next barbecue. Best of luck and have a medical team on standby.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

Fishy mentioned the fake autopsy head photo.

I appreciate that you are tired of arguing, and I can appreciate how tiring it must be for you to be losing so many arguments that, rather like the late Nikita Krushchev, you are reduced to replying 'No' to question after question, but I would be interested to know - and I imagine Fishy and Cobalt would be too - your answer to the following question:

Since you say that the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head intact is genuine, that the Moorman photo, showing the back of his head intact, also proves that there was no hole in the back of his head, and that there was no gaping wound in the back of his head ...

... please explain what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill meant when he testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing.
It was lying in the rear seat of his car.
His brain was exposed... one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of his head.


And please explain what Jacqueline Kennedy meant when she testified:

And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored.

But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top.


If you maintain that the back of Kennedy's head was intact, can you please tell us which part of his head Clint Hill saw lying on the rear car seat?

Can you tell us where the piece of Kennedy's skull Jacqueline reached for, as shown in the Zapruder movie, came from?

Do you think it came from an exit wound at the front of his head?

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Nit picking.’ The last resort of the man without detailed evidence. IP does well not to engage personally with HS but to confront his arguments. That is the best policy. Keep going. Rather like Sinatra, HS is always about to do his last tour. But he keeps coming back. A few hours ago he questioned whether Davis was ever in the Texas Theatre. Now he accepts this as fact since- guess what- the WC said so. The WC and Bugliosi are his bible, that much is clear. Faith before fact is his mantra.

I was accused recently that my boxing metaphor of the head moving towards the source of impact, unprecedented in boxing history, was wrong on the basis I had no expertise in this area. I respect experts but never to the extent they have the right to loot my common sense. I would recommend this approach to others.

Therefore I would offer any physics ‘expert’ the opportunity to go into the ring with Mike Tyson and disprove my wild claim. If his head is driven forward as Tyson inflicts brain damage I will accept the results as conclusive. HS is obviously invited to test the theory as well before he heads off to his next barbecue. Best of luck and have a medical team on standby.

The Doctors and scientist have been produced Cobalt. Clearly you no more. Fine.

Tyson’s fist is a tad heavier than a bullet. I’m not a scientist and I knew that.

[FISHY1118]

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

Haha I will do that indeed . George and I showed you all the evidence you could ever need to make a educated opinion on the difference between facts and the baloney fake picture you posted and the WC nonsense. So I'm more than happy with my contribution .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy mentioned the fake autopsy head photo.

I appreciate that you are tired of arguing, and I can appreciate how tiring it must be for you to be losing so many arguments that, rather like the late Nikita Krushchev, you are reduced to replying 'No' to question after question, but I would be interested to know - and I imagine Fishy and Cobalt would be too - your answer to the following question:

Since you say that the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head intact is genuine, that the Moorman photo, showing the back of his head intact, also proves that there was no hole in the back of his head, and that there was no gaping wound in the back of his head ...

... please explain what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill meant when he testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing.
It was lying in the rear seat of his car.
His brain was exposed... one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of his head.


And please explain what Jacqueline Kennedy meant when she testified:

And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored.

But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top.


If you maintain that the back of Kennedy's head was intact, can you please tell us which part of his head Clint Hill saw lying on the rear car seat?

Can you tell us where the piece of Kennedy's skull Jacqueline reached for, as shown in the Zapruder movie, came from?

Do you think it came from an exit wound at the front of his head?

I could care less what Clint Hill said. Or Newman. Or McClelland. If you can dismiss the 3 pathologists and the 9 at the HSCA including Wecht then I can dismiss the irrelevant ones - the ones that you choose to believe.



End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Haha I will do that indeed . George and I showed you all the evidence you could ever need to make a educated opinion on the difference between facts and the baloney fake picture you posted and the WC nonsense. So I'm more than happy with my contribution .

[FISHY1118]

Fishy mentioned the fake autopsy head photo.

I appreciate that you are tired of arguing, and I can appreciate how tiring it must be for you to be losing so many arguments that, rather like the late Nikita Krushchev, you are reduced to replying 'No' to question after question, but I would be interested to know - and I imagine Fishy and Cobalt would be too - your answer to the following question:

Since you say that the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head intact is genuine, that the Moorman photo, showing the back of his head intact, also proves that there was no hole in the back of his head, and that there was no gaping wound in the back of his head ...

... please explain what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill meant when he testified:

The right rear portion of his head was missing.
It was lying in the rear seat of his car.
His brain was exposed... one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of his head.


And please explain what Jacqueline Kennedy meant when she testified:

And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored.

But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top.


If you maintain that the back of Kennedy's head was intact, can you please tell us which part of his head Clint Hill saw lying on the rear car seat?

Can you tell us where the piece of Kennedy's skull Jacqueline reached for, as shown in the Zapruder movie, came from?

Do you think it came from an exit wound at the front of his head?

Oh thats easy, they lied , were mistaken, were both idiots or morons ,thats the standard defense of the WC circus believer.

Dr Robert McLellan. You can add him to the list too , stood at the back of jfk stretcher and saw a hole the size of an orange when he looked at his head.

This was minutes after jfk arrived in trauma room 1 at Parklands hospital.

Its a disgrace to the memory of a dead president the autopsy head photo is so passionately believed as tru by the gullible WC supporter.

[FISHY1118]

I could care less what Clint Hill said. Or Newman. Or McClelland. If you can dismiss the 3 pathologists and the 9 at the HSCA including Wecht then I can dismiss the irrelevant ones - the ones that you choose to believe.



End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some.

Yer more fake Herlock George already exposed this to you ,but of course you just ignore it

[cobalt]

'Tyson’s fist is a tad heavier than a bullet. I’m not a scientist and I knew that.'

I'm not sure about that but I enjoyed your riposte.

I think I would rather take my chance against Tyson than a soft point bullet from the Grassy Knoll.

[FISHY1118]

[FISHY1118]

I could care less what Clint Hill said. Or Newman. Or McClelland. If you can dismiss the 3 pathologists and the 9 at the HSCA including Wecht then I can dismiss the irrelevant ones - the ones that you choose to believe.



End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some.

Anyone that produces the fake head autopsy photo is not worth listening too

McClelland is your argument exposed

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I could care less what Clint Hill said. Or Newman. Or McClelland. If you can dismiss the 3 pathologists and the 9 at the HSCA including Wecht then I can dismiss the irrelevant ones - the ones that you choose to believe.



End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some.

I'm not going to get personal, but I imagine others reading this will wonder, as I do, what kind of investigator would deprecate the eyewitness testimony of a secret service agent who saw Kennedy's head as close up as anyone ever could have seen it and testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in the back of the skull?

It shocks me to see someone treating evidence in that way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh thats easy, they lied , were mistaken, were both idiots or morons ,thats the standard defense of the WC circus believer.

Dr Robert McLellan. You can add him to the list too , stood at the back of jfk stretcher and saw a hole the size of an orange when he looked at his head.

This was minutes after jfk arrived in trauma room 1 at Parklands hospital.

Its a disgrace to the memory of a dead president the autopsy head photo is so passionately believed as tru by the gullible WC supporter.

Break the habit of a lifetime Fishy and answer just one question and submit to just one request.

Question - Why did Dr. McClelland (who you are clearly trying to propose as some kind of game changer) put in writing at 4.45 on the afternoon of the assassination, just after he’d stood at the head of that stretcher, that President Kennedy had a wound to the side of his head? Was he mistaken then remembered correctly after he’d left the trauma room. Then in the 90’s was he correct when he had a re-think and admitted that he could have been wrong and that the drawing that he’d done was misleading? Or was he right in 2004 when he went back to opinion number 2? Take your pick.

Request - Could you please provide proper physical evidence a fakery. And ‘proper physical evidence’ doesn’t mean ‘well a percentage of people that you support disagree’. You do want to be fair I assume? After all, what about those other witnesses, and not just the pathologists, who said that the wound was to the side. For example - if in a normal crime two witness gave evidence that they appeared sure of, but the CCTV footage disproved their evidence, firstly wouldn’t you like everyone else deduce that the witnesses were simply mistaken? And if you still had doubts and suspected that the CCTV footage might have been faked wouldn’t you want a proper scientific check to see if there was tangible evidence that it had been faked? Well that’s what I’m requesting - not ‘well it disagrees with some of the witness so it must be faked’ i want proper, tested and confirmed evidence of fakery.

I think those are a very fair, reasonable and entirely understandable question and request. I eagerly await your response.

[FISHY1118]

I'm not going to get personal, but I imagine others reading this will wonder, as I do, what kind of investigator would deprecate the eyewitness testimony of a secret service agent who saw Kennedy's head as close up as anyone ever could have seen it and testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in the back of the skull?

It shocks me to see someone treating evidence in that way.

Not me , his being treating the evidence that way since the topic began .

Total and utter disrespect for direct contradictory evidence to the warren commission from people who were there ,who were shot ( Connally) Nurse Audrey Bell, who saw the bullet fragments pulled out of him thus making an absolute mockery the magic bullet theory. A member of the WC who wouldn't didn't believe that theory and wouldn't sign to it , LBJ who refuse to believe the MB theory , this list is endless

But here we have a person wants us all to believe the nonsense of the lone gunman theory .

Stupidity