JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Abby Normal]

Although the magic bullet theory could be possible i guess I would be remiss if i didnt say It seems highly unlikely IMHO. Especially considering both connally and his wife both are adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet. They think kennedy was hit first in the back/neck, and then he connally was hit with the second shot. (Then the fatal head shot.) And the film and pictures seem to bear it out. Both connally and his wife are turning to look at Kennedy after he was hit with the first shot and there is no indication connally was struck yet, no sign of distress or anything. And connallys wife said that after the second shot she looked at her husband and noticed he appeared to have been shot at that point, even saying she saw blood from him. They are absolutely sure he did NOT get hit with the same shot.

whats up with that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Although the magic bullet theory could be possible i guess I would be remiss if i didnt say It seems highly unlikely IMHO. Especially considering both connally and his wife both are adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet. They think kennedy was hit first in the back/neck, and then he connally was hit with the second shot. (Then the fatal head shot.) And the film and pictures seem to bear it out. Both connally and his wife are turning to look at Kennedy after he was hit with the first shot and there is no indication connally was struck yet, no sign of distress or anything. And connallys wife said that after the second shot she looked at her husband and noticed he appeared to have been shot at that point, even saying she saw blood from him. They are absolutely sure he did NOT get hit with the same shot.

whats up with that?

I agree.

And no-one can produce an eyewitness who was in a better position to judge what was going on than the two you mentioned.

I would just add that Connally suspected that there were several gunmen - and he was not the only witness who thought so:

'... a flurry of shells [which] all came in together.'

(KELLERMAN)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon Herlock,

We all know that lightning is seen before thunder is heard, because light travels faster than sound. Obviously the distances here are huge and I'm not trying to compare a storm in any way with hearing the sound of gunfire and then seeing the consequences. The time gap between gun being fired and target being hit would not have registered with anyone witnessing the assassination, but almost everyone who was not part of the motorcade would instinctively have had their eyes glued to JFK as he was driven past, and would not have been expecting to hear gun shots. What I'm getting at is that the evidence of their eyes would come first, because of what they were already looking at, followed by the evidence of their ears when the shots rang out and they needed a second or two to register what was happening before their very eyes.

How many witnesses would have taken their eyes off JFK and how his body was reacting, to make a sound [as in accurate] assessment of where the sounds of the shots were coming from?

This was a unique situation for everyone who was there, and I don't believe the human brain would have been all that well equipped to interpret both the terrible sights and the shocking sounds in the spur of the moment. I know I very often 'tune out' of what's being said on the radio, for instance, if I'm concentrating hard on something that demands other senses, such as looking, writing or thinking, and I will have no idea what my ears were picking up just moments before.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

Id say that’s a very valid point. I’d suggest that the reactions of those witnesses whose eyes were naturally glued onto the President would probably have been > 1st shot - was that a gunshot/ firecracker/ car backfiring, so an element of “what was that?” > 2nd shot - aren’t these gunshots? Has the President been hit? Those closer would have noticed the presidents reactions of course with his arms going up. Then, are we in danger?. > Then the third shot, eyes on Kennedy, he clearly falls backwards and to the left which intuitively tells us “shot from front/right.”

I’m conscious of course of repeatedly using the phrase ‘conspiracy theorist’ and that some don’t like it, but if you believe in conspiracy it’s entirely accurate, and CT’s just won’t accept how the circumstances can affect judgment. It’s more surprising when we know that those same people regularly tell us how witnesses like John Richardson in the ripper can’t be trusted even though he wasn’t making a split second judgment in entirely one-off traumatic circumstances. Those Dealey Plaza witnesses couldn’t have been in more difficult circumstances and what they were witnessing took place over about 8 seconds with most of that period taken up with panic, confusion and a desire for self-preservation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So now we can trust all secret service agents, in PI's opinion, to have been beyond reproach in this case?

Fascinating.

I thought they'd be near the top of the list of suspected conspirators. Either that, or the secret service had no intelligence in either sense of the word.

On the contrary: there is evidence that three Secret Service Agents were parties to the conspiracy, but Clint Hill was not among them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I suggest we round up a couple of new five year olds, as the best the current ones can come up with is "My response is……shut up."

I am urgently seeking a five-year-old who agrees with our adversaries that

Kennedy could have been sitting in such a position that a wound to his back six inches below the neckline could have been at a higher level than his Adam's apple

but I haven't had any luck yet.

I doubt whether many adults would agree with it, either.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Could people please stop shouting all the way through a post, as my ears are bleeding. It won't make the arguments any stronger.

Thank you in advance.

Love,

Caz
X

My apologies, Caz, but someone once advised me to reply to comments in bold in order to distinguish them, when placing answers within the body of the text being quoted.

In order not to cause you further distress, and in case you were in too much pain to finish reading my contribution, I am reproducing it more quietly below:

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?

I would add a quiet reminder that the replies I received - I believe from Herlock Shomes - to the above three questions were three Nos.

I apologise for the sudden and unexpected rise in volume, but grammatical considerations became paramount.

The bottom line is that the three questions are obviously too powerful, even at normal volume, for HS to be able to answer them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary, there is evidence that three Secret Service Agents were parties to the conspiracy, but Clint Hill was not among them.

No there isn’t. There was no conspiracy. It’s just something that gullible people believe when they deliberately go looking for exactly that. Then they manipulate everything to try and make it fit the script. Everything piece of evidence that they can’t disprove they jump up and down like babies yelling ‘fake’ like little mini-Trumps. And they NEVER respond to points they don’t like or answer difficult questions.

Conspiracy theorists are a curse to mankind. They label those that disagree with them as being ‘in on it’ or ‘gullible’ because they have no sense of proportion or reason. It’s a huge clue when you talk to most conspiracy theorists in that they tend never to find a conspiracy that they don’t fall in love with. Madder and madder conspiracies are proposed and this case there have been some crackers but they still stand there, after apparently having some kind of ‘sense of embarrassment’ bypass operation,’ trying to claim the high ground whilst ‘bleating “forgery,” and “fake” like robots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies, Caz, but someone once advised me to reply to comments in bold in order to distinguish them, when placing answers within the body of the text being quoted.

Yes, it was me. But I was very obviously talking about within a quote box (like I’m doing now) where you need to differentiate between quoted points and responses or the reader will not be able to tell who said what. Simple enough.

In order not to cause you further distress, and in case you were in too much pain to finish reading my contribution, I am reproducing it more quietly below:

It would take more than a bit of emboldened text to ‘distress’ Caz. But this is obvious sarcasm - which again is quite ok for conspiracy theorists but when I do it they burst into floods of tears.

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, because battles tend not to be filmed. The EXPERTS tell us what happens in physics, not you. Experts tell us about weight transfer and the weight of a head compared with the minute weight of a bullet. Stop asking silly questions and go and talk to a physicist. Perhaps try the Nobel Prize winning Physicist Luis Alvarez who tells us about the subject - you might want to tell him that he should send his Nobel Prize back because he clearly doesn’t know as much about the subject as you.

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?

Same crap as above - same response - who do we go to for information relating to this topic…..scientists or PI. Let me think….

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?

It hasn’t been. It’s been explained by Wulf and hundreds of other people. Again…..who do I trust, experts or you?

I would add a quiet reminder that the replies I received - I believe from Herlock Shomes - to the above three questions were three Nos.

Because I have a low tolerance for repeated nonsense and posts from constant questioners who refuse to give any answers. Go back through this thread and count how many questions I’ve answered then count how questions or points I’ve had an answer to. The ratio is probable 10-1. Are you surprised that I’m a tad irritated when this thread is like being on Mastermind.

I apologise for the sudden and unexpected rise in volume, but grammatical considerations became paramount.

The bottom line is that the three questions are obviously too powerful, even at normal volume, for HS to be able to answer them.

They are stupid questions. They are non-issues which have been explained god knows how many times and we are TIRED of repeating ourselves.


And when will you EVER answer any questions? You’re as bad as George and Fishy, question after question but no answers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

No there isn’t. There was no conspiracy. It’s just something that gullible people believe when they deliberately go looking for exactly that.


There have been conspiracies to commit murder - including political murders - for as long as there has been human history.

If someone does not accept that, he is being far worse than gullible.




Then they manipulate everything to try and make it fit the script.



You are one of a select group here who claim that a shot which entered Kennedy's back about six inches below his neckline then went on to exit his throat.

And you claim that this was possible because Kennedy's back was hunched.

It's doubtful even whether the Hunchback of Notre Dame would fit your theory.

And you talk about ME manipulating everything and trying to make it fit a script?!




Everything piece of evidence that they can’t disprove they jump up and down like babies yelling ‘fake’ like little mini-Trumps.


And what do you do when you have no satisfactory response?





And they NEVER respond to points they don’t like or answer difficult questions.


That's right rich coming from you.

When you are confronted by difficult questions, your response is that you have no intention of answering them.

Your response to three questions about whether you would answer three questions was: 'No. No. No.'

You responded to one of my posts with simply 'Shut up'.

Your response to another was merely to show a toilet roll.

You have a long history of not responding to points you don't like and not responding to difficult questions.




Conspiracy theorists are a curse to mankind.


I am NOT a conspiracy theorist.

I do not agree that John Lennon, Princess Diana, George Patton, or Dr David Kelly were murdered as the result of conspiracies, nor that the US Government knew in advance of the 9/11 conspiracy or were in any way a party to it, nor that Madeleine McCann's parents disposed of her body.

When I say that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, I do so because everywhere you look, there is evidence of a conspiracy.




They label those that disagree with them as being ‘in on it’ or ‘gullible’ because they have no sense of proportion or reason.


I am not labelling anyone as gullible, but I think - based on what you have just written - that your deep dislike of conspiracy theorists is blinding you to the truth.

It is remarkable how, whenever evidence of Oswald's having been impersonated on numerous occasions, in both America and Mexico - even in both countries at the same time - is mentioned, you just shut up.

Why?




It’s a huge clue when you talk to most conspiracy theorists in that they tend never to find a conspiracy that they don’t fall in love with.


Is that a serious comment?




Madder and madder conspiracies are proposed and this case there have been some crackers but they still stand there, after apparently having some kind of ‘sense of embarrassment’ bypass operation,’ trying to claim the high ground whilst ‘bleating “forgery,” and “fake” like robots.




The Single Bullet Theory IS a forgery.

If it were not a forgery, you and Wulf would have replied to my refutation of it, instead of which you both shut up like clams - and anyone can see that by viewing our exchanges in this thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.


No there isn’t. There was no conspiracy. It’s just something that gullible people believe when they deliberately go looking for exactly that.


There have been conspiracies to commit murder - including political murders - for as long as there has been human history.

If someone does not accept that, he is being far worse than gullible.


Not of this massive complexity. This kind of conspiracy is an impossibility.


Then they manipulate everything to try and make it fit the script.

You are one of a select group here who claim that a shot which entered Kennedy's back about six inches below his neckline then went on to exit his throat.

And you claim that this was possible because Kennedy's back was hunched.

It's doubtful even whether the Hunchback of Notre Dame would fit your theory.

And you talk about ME manipulating everything and trying to make it fit a script?!

Im not interested in discussing this topic again. It’s done and dusted. You don’t know what you’re talking about.


Everything piece of evidence that they can’t disprove they jump up and down like babies yelling ‘fake’ like little mini-Trumps.


And what do you do when you have no satisfactory response?

Say that I don’t know.


And they NEVER respond to points they don’t like or answer difficult questions.


That's right rich coming from you.

When you are confronted by difficult questions, your response is that you have no intention of answering them.

Your response to three questions about whether you would answer three questions was: 'No. No. No.'

You responded to one of my posts with simply 'Shut up'.

Your response to another was merely to show a toilet roll.

You have a long history of not responding to points you don't like and not responding to difficult questions.


Read back through this thread. See how many I’ve answered. Then compare it to how many I’ve had answered.


Conspiracy theorists are a curse to mankind.


I am NOT a conspiracy theorist.

Yes you are. You think like one.

I do not agree that John Lennon, Princess Diana, George Patton, or Dr David Kelly were murdered as the result of conspiracies, nor that the US Government knew in advance of the 9/11 conspiracy or were in any way a party to it, nor that Madeleine McCann's parents disposed of her body.

When I say that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, I do so because everywhere you look, there is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not a smidgeon of evidence.

They label those that disagree with them as being ‘in on it’ or ‘gullible’ because they have no sense of proportion or reason.


I am not labelling anyone as gullible, but I think - based on what you have just written - that your deep dislike of conspiracy theorists is blinding you to the truth.

And your conspiracy theorist is making you sound like other conspiracy theorists.

It is remarkable how, whenever evidence of Oswald's having been impersonated on numerous occasions, in both America and Mexico - even in both countries at the same time - is mentioned, you just shut up.

Why?

Again, try actually reading…..I made a very long post on this actual topic ages ago on here. I don’t recall you mentioning Mexico btw.


It’s a huge clue when you talk to most conspiracy theorists in that they tend never to find a conspiracy that they don’t fall in love with.


Is that a serious comment?

Yup.


Madder and madder conspiracies are proposed and this case there have been some crackers but they still stand there, after apparently having some kind of ‘sense of embarrassment’ bypass operation,’ trying to claim the high ground whilst ‘bleating “forgery,” and “fake” like robots.

The Single Bullet Theory IS a forgery.

If it were not a forgery, you and Wulf would have replied to my refutation of it, instead of which you both shut up like clams - and anyone can see that by viewing our exchanges in this thread.

Clownish no sense.

The single bullet isn’t a theory. It’s a fact. Proven. No longer worthy of discussion.

Now…..let me just make this plain……if you mention this hole in the back crap again you will be wearing your typing finger out pointless. I’m not going to waste my time discussing it with you. Everything that has been said about it has been said. It’s a conspiracist non-issue.

If for some reason you want to continue discussing this subject and you want responses from me, then first I want meaningful responses to some questions and points that I want answering. If that’s too much to ask, then we can end it here. I’m really not bothered after experiencing some of the babyish nonsense and hypocrisy that I’ve had to endure on this thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is remarkable how, whenever evidence of Oswald's having been impersonated on numerous occasions, in both America and Mexico - even in both countries at the same time - is mentioned, you just shut up.

Why?

(PI 1)

Again, try actually reading…..I made a very long post on this actual topic ages ago on here. I don’t recall you mentioning Mexico btw.

(HS)





I mentioned three witnesses who saw the Oswald in Mexico City and described someone who - as noted by the HSCA - did not look anything like the real Oswald.

For example, all three witnesses said that the Oswald had blond hair.

The real Oswald did not have blond hair.

They also described someone who was shorter than the real Oswald.

I also mentioned the fact that the Oswald spoke poor Russian whereas the real Oswald spoke Russian fluently.

I also mentioned the impersonation of Oswald by two people who drove cars.

The real Oswald could not drive and was never seen driving a car.

I also mentioned two Oswalds seen consistently shooting bull's eyes at rifle ranges.

There is no record of the real Oswald ever having hit a bull's eye.

You have never answered these points.

You now announce your intention not to do so.

Maybe you should try reading AND answering!

[Aethelwulf]

The single bullet isn’t a theory. It’s a fact. Proven. No longer worthy of discussion.

Now…..let me just make this plain……if you mention this hole in the back crap again you will be wearing your typing finger out pointless. I’m not going to waste my time discussing it with you. Everything that has been said about it has been said. It’s a conspiracist non-issue.

If for some reason you want to continue discussing this subject and you want responses from me, then first I want meaningful responses to some questions and points that I want answering. If that’s too much to ask, then we can end it here. I’m really not bothered after experiencing some of the babyish nonsense and hypocrisy that I’ve had to endure on this thread.

Our friend IP2 is a just a massive attention seeker. Notice his scatter gun approach at spamming up every thread. He's like a little boy or girl jumping up and down screaming 'look at me, look me, talk to me'. I love the way he keeps telling us we're 'in a tight spot'. He fails to realise this is just an online forum and it doesn't actually matter. It might matter to him I suppose - heaven forbid he is actually a private investigator. Based on his posts here and his 'Nordic Sailor' routine, he could't investigate his way out of a wet paper bag with barge pole.

We have given plenty of evidence that rubbishes the conspiracy theory. He, like all other conspiracy theorists, can't bear the fact that the truth is actually really boring and mundane.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Or are you suggesting the two wounds are connected, but fired from a different trajectory? If so, what one? Or are the two wounds unconnected - if so where are the corresponding exit/entrance wounds?


It is years ago since I researched the assassination, so would be grateful to be brought up to speed.

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have only just noticed your post after a long day.

I didn't notice it among my notifications when I first logged in today.

I have read that surveyors acting on behalf of the Warren Commission estimated the downwards trajectory from the sixth floor window at 18 degrees.

If Hume was right that the downwards angle of the wound was 45-60 degrees, then obviously Oswald could not have fired that shot.

Someone here has questioned whether Hume was right, but he would have had to be out by a long way for Oswald to be the shooter.

The Warren Commission's own photographic reconstructions of the single bullet trajectory seem to show a trajectory similar to the surveyors' estimate and not to Hume's.

But in order to have the trajectory of the shot to the back, the wound to Kennedy's back, and the wound to the front of Kennedy's throat lined up, they had to raise the back wound by about five inches, a fact noted by FBI agent Sibert, who viewed the autopsy.

Our friends here have got the back wound to line up with the throat wound by hunching up Kennedy's back, but that is impossible because no-one can contort his back in such a way as to cause a particular spot on it to be five inches higher than it would be if he were sitting normally!

The only logical conclusion is that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back would, had it exited Kennedy's body, have exited his lower abdomen or thereabouts, but the autopsy indicated that the bullet did not exit Kennedy's body because it did not penetrate far enough to do so.

The throat wound must, therefore, have been a wound of entrance, and that was the unanimous opinion of the large number of doctors who viewed the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy being performed.

Their opinion is the best medical evidence because they were the only doctors who saw the wound in its original condition.

The wounds which, according to the Warren Commission Report, were caused by a single bullet, were in reality caused by at least three bullets: the one which hit Kennedy in his back and did not exit, the one which hit Kennedy's throat from the front and did not exit, and at least one shot which hit Connally - which, as Connally and his wife acknowledged, was a separate bullet.

In addition, many witnesses, including five who testified to the Warren Commission, including two Secret Servicemen, mentioned a double shot - at the end of the series of shots - which must have been two shots to the head.

That makes a total of at least six shots.

I have presented the details of this argument in an online documentary.

[GBinOz]

I am urgently seeking a five-year-old who agrees with our adversaries that

Kennedy could have been sitting in such a position that a wound to his back six inches below the neckline could have been at a higher level than his Adam's apple

but I haven't had any luck yet.

I doubt whether many adults would agree with it, either.

I have been criticised for that five-year-old remark. Apparently you are the only one to notice that it was originally an insult from Sir HS's chief cheerleader, and I just volleyed it back across the net. But I keep forgetting that I am the hypocrite.

I notice the latest complaint is "we are TIRED of repeating ourselves". My reply would be, not nearly as tired as we are of hearing you repeat yourself.

[cobalt]

Be warned PI,

Your opponents are now writing in BLUE ink! I think that used to be the colour of choice for poison pen letters.

I don’t think HS has the capacity to think outwith his Bugliosi bible. You brought up the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City but Bugliosi could not deal with that in his reconstruction; he quite wisely focused on Oswald actually being in Mexico City at the same time and left it at that. HS can do no more so he is obliged to ignore the point.

Similar with his claimed three witnesses, which he is still clinging to like a drowning man to a raft. It was established two days ago per the WC testimony that only one witness- Norman- said anything that supported the WC case; the other two witnesses were at best neutral. Buglisoi had no way of squaring this circle but HS thinks he can do better than his master so falsely claims to have three witnesses. He doesn't.

Caz called me out the other day for using an analogy about boxing. Today she uses one of her own about the difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound. Which is perfectly valid but rather like the boxing ring, I doubt she has ever been in an area where fists or bullets were flying and animal instinct took over. If half of the people in Dealey Plaza thought the shots were coming from the Grassy Knoll they were probably relying on their sense of self preservation. Ditto those who thought they were coming from the TSBD. They were both right so far as I can judge, and the best positioned witnesses like Sam Holland and Jesse Curry recognised they were coming from both areas.