JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

Carl Desroe.

“Jim Towner, a former military man immediately recognised what his wife described as ‘firecrackers’ as gunshots. He heard three shots which he thought came from the Book Depository. He followed a crowd of spectators to the picket fence and spoke to a black man wearing a white uniform standing on the back of a Pullman dining car. It was Carl Desroe. Desroe responded to questions from the crowd asking if he had observed anyone in the vicinity. “No sir” Desroe said, “I haven’t seen anybody back here and I’ve been back here watching the whole thing.”


It’s always fair play to look at a person and to see if he might have lied or might have been an unreliable kind of person. That said, George posted this quote from the book The Kennedy Half Century in his scramble to denigrate an inconvenient witness:
I don't see any denigration.

“The porter, Carl Desroe, was not identified or interviewed by the Commission, and before his death, he shared his story only with his Pastor, Bishop Mark Herbener. Bishop Herbener was the first to identify Desroe in 2006. Desroe and his wife had been on the overpass before Kennedy’s motorcade approached, but had been ordered off by unknown “officials.” Desroe wife, Amelia, told Herbener, “I saw some things……I’m afraid to tell anybody. I’ll never tell anybody. I’m afraid for my life.” Herbener knew the couple well. Desroe was the personal porter to the president of Katy Railroad. As for Amelia, Herbener said, “What she saw or thinks she saw, I have no idea. She wasn’t a screwball. She was a pretty genuine person.” Both Desroe’s are long deceased.”


So nowhere in this statement is Desroe or his wife denigrated or even suggested as the kind of people to lie.
Ahh, so there is no denigration, just a deceitful accusation.
Desroe said that they were ordered off the overpass by “officials.” I don’t know why the author stressed “officials” because we know from Holland that there were officials up there checking who was or wasn’t authorised to be there or not. What could she have been afraid of? I’ll hazard what I believe is a fair guess. By the time that she spoke about this, conspiracies were rife. All of them implicating the authorities (including police) and most of them involving the Grassy Knoll. Thinking back might she not just have thought “police officers behind the Knoll around the time of the assassination….where they up to something?” A bit of paranoia induced by conspiracy theorists perhaps?

We have no reason to suspect Desroe of dishonesty. He had been selected to a responsible job and a former military man saw him behind the fence. He had no reason to lie about being there and was right about the officers on the pass and what they were doing. And now we can go back to the comments from Towner and Boone.

Towner had - spoke to a black man wearing a white uniform standing on the back of a Pullman dining car.

Boone - He saw one person, a black guy working the pullmans. (that was precisely his job)

Surely Towner and Boone are describing the same man? The only thing missing is mention of his wife but hardly surprising in 1963. She might have moved slightly away from Desroe for a minute and if Towner, a man of his time, wanted information it’s a fair bet that he’d have honed straight in on the man.

So we have no reason to doubt that Desroe was somewhere behind the fence at the time of the murder. His presence is confirmed by 2 people. And Desroe saw absolutely nothing. He couldn’t possibly have missed an assassin.

…..

Another Herlock prediction…….a yawning silence on this.

Here we see a typical Sir HS post. Start with an insult. Present 3 witnesses testimony all saying that they saw a man "standing on the back of a Pullman dining car.". Deduce from these statements that the man was "behind the fence at the time of the murder." and saw nothing. Therefore, no assassin. Pause to await applause.

Brilliant deduction. Masterful logic. Except, how did a Pullman dining car manage to be behind the picket fence? Nearest railway seems to be over behind the control tower.


Lee Bowers was in the control tower that day at the time of the shooting, and said "there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something that caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8H_...nel=montycombs

The Sir HS conclusion: "So we have no reason to doubt that Desroe was somewhere behind the fence at the time of the murder. His presence is confirmed by 2 people. And Desroe saw absolutely nothing. He couldn’t possibly have missed an assassin."

So Desroe, while standing at the back of the Pullman dining car he had pushed through the parking lot over to the picket fence, saw nothing. Game over, case closed.

Anyone able to read and understand the English language can see what was actually stated, but we have the inevitable manipulation and deceptive presentation.

[PRB]

There is overwhelming evidence that .... Oswald .... was impersonated by someone in Mexico City who was inches shorter, had a different hair colour, was about 10 years older, looked nothing like him....

If 'they' were trying to frame the real Oswald, why were they doing such a poor job of it? Not even bothering to find an impersonator who matched Oswald in any way seems hugely unlikely.

I also don't believe for a second that the real Oswald couldn't drive.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Kellerman (who you character assassinate too) and Greer both looked to the rear. I wonder why?

Because that’s where the President was and that was where the bullets were coming from!

Anyone can view the Zapruder film and see that I described accurately what it shows.

As I stated, both Greer and Kellerman were looking behind at Kennedy, who was obviously injured after shots which they had heard ring out.

They were looking at him at the same time.

Kellerman was still looking at Kennedy when his brains were blown out.

Greer did not, as he claimed in his testimony, promptly accelerate the car in response to the shots.

Witnesses stated that he slowed the car down almost to a halt.

This is confirmed in a movie taken by a witness, in which the rear red lights are visible.

Kellerman did not promptly instruct Greer to accelerate in response to the shots, but instead watched Kennedy being murdered.

I suggest that the behaviour of Kellerman and Greer is not capable of innocent explanation.

I also note that you seem not to have addressed the fact that a Secret Service agent ordered two others - one of whom was Clint Hill - not to mount the platforms at the back of the presidential limousine - from where they would have been able to prevent the assassination - seconds before the assassination.

Again, anyone can view the film of that.


That makes three Secret Service agents acting in ways that facilitated the assassination.

Anyone can view both those recordings and decide for himself or herself whether, as you claim, I am bent on libelling innocent men or whether, as I suggest, their conduct was too suspicious to be susceptible to anything but a sinister explanation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

i think it is clear that oswald was claiming that he was being framed, and that he was alleging that his supposed defection to the soviet union was being used as a pretext to pin the assassination on him.

If he had not used the word 'patsy', then i would agree with you, but he did.

why is that? Do you have your own dictionary where ‘patsy’ means ‘person who is part of a conspiracy?’ it simply means someone that is blamed for something that he/she didn’t do. Oswald, using words in the english language, said that he was only being blamed because he’d been in russia. It’s in black and white. You’re in denial. I won’t respond on this point again as i’ve wasted enough time responding to babyishly poor logic.

the fact that he did not go into detail does not mean he would not have spilled the beans later.

and he might have told them he was oliver cromwell! He had more than ample time to gave spilled the beans, as did ruby and neither of them at any point mentioned being part of a conspiracy. Never. Not once. Ruby even took a lie detector because he was so confident that he was acting alone…which he past. Oswald refused to take one because he knew that he was guilty.

he indicated to a secret service agent just before he was murdered that he would consider his invitation to tell what he knew about any conspiracy.



I would remind you of two of our exchanges on related matters.


You claimed that ruby denied that there was a conspiracy - and it is true that he made conflicting statements.

there was no conflict. Ruby said that he acted alone.

in response, i quoted ruby stating categorically:


(1) that there was a conspiracy, involving someone or persons in the dallas police department, to murder oswald

lie.

(2) that he shot oswald on the orders of powerful people

lie.

(3) that powerful people would cover up the truth about both assassinations

lie.


provide the actual evidence where he explicitly said exactly those things and no what you infer from what he said. You won’t be able to because it didn’t happen.


you claimed that oswald wrote a letter in which he referred to his alleged visit to the soviet embassy in mexico city.

In response, i cited evidence cited by the los angeles times that the soviet ambassador noted in an internal memo that the letter, which had been typed, was a forgery.

It had been compared with letters known to have been received from the real oswald and it did not match them.

even bugliosi admitted that someone ‘might’ have used oswald’s id at some point but that doesn’t equate to any connection to the assassination. The evidence against him being there is massively and overwhelmingly negated by the proof that he was.

i would not dream of accusing you of being gullible, but i don't see how you can explain away the categorical statements made by ruby about a conspiracy, a cover-up, about the timing of his shooting of oswald - i suppose what caz would call something 'written in the stars' - and about his having been ordered to kill oswald.

because they aren’t categorical, they are how you are interpreting them. I’m not interpreting them, i’m simply taking them exactly as they are written but i’m also using the context and not quoting in isolation as you do.

i would also point out that his statement that he received help from within the dallas police department to kill oswald was made under oath.

ive explained that but you persist.

the fact that dobrynin concluded that the letter you say was written by oswald was a forgery is damning enough, but the fact that he did so privately suggests that he was not in any way trying to disseminate false information.

no it’s not. What about all those that categorically identified oswald? What about marina actually saying that oswald told her that he’d been there. He even to,d her about the problems he’d had with red tape.

the fact that the letter was typed is also significant, since a forger might have been able to forge oswald's signature, but could hardly have forged a whole letter.

The forging of oswald's signature on the letter to the soviet embassy obviously has implications for the genuineness of the signatures you say oswald produced in mexico city.

As edwin lopez noted, sylvia duran did not confirm that oswald signed his application form in her presence.

lopez is another conspiracy fantasist. About as credible as jim garrison.

it was established that the oswald in mexico city did not obtain photographs there.

lie.

there is overwhelming evidence that ruby did not act alone,

lie. There isn’t even a smidgeon. Not even a single, solitary iota of evidence. Just conspiracist joining up unconnected dots.

that oswald's letter to the soviet embassy was a forgery, and that he was impersonated by someone in mexico city who was inches shorter, had a different hair colour, was about 10 years older, looked nothing like him, did not personally sign his application form, and went through the motions of visiting photo booths recommended by duran.

take off the conspiracy goggles. Start reading the lines rather that making inferences from reading between them.

[PRB]

I suggest that the behaviour of Kellerman and Greer is not capable of innocent explanation.

Then why didn't the conspirators who supposedly faked the Zap film modify the agents' actions into something more innocent?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then why didn't the conspirators who supposedly faked the Zap film modify the agents' actions into something more innocent?

I haven't said the Zapruder film is fake.

If it has been tampered with, changing Greer's and Kellerman's actions would surely have been beyond anyone trying to alter the film.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If 'they' were trying to frame the real Oswald, why were they doing such a poor job of it? Not even bothering to find an impersonator who matched Oswald in any way seems hugely unlikely.

I also don't believe for a second that the real Oswald couldn't drive.

What is more credible - that they did a poor job of impersonating Oswald, or that Oswald made himself three inches shorter, turned his hair blond, aged himself ten years, and pretended to be able to speak only broken Russian?

There is no evidence that Oswald could drive and no evidence from anyone who knew him of his having driven a car at any time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Herlock Shomes:


I wrote in # 1320:


'Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.'

And then, in answer to a reporter's question, 'Are these people in very high positions, Jack?', he responded, "Yes."

(Jack Ruby at Press Conference in March 1965)


You replied in # 1330:

He’s just talking about why he killed Kennedy (sic) and is complaining that Commission were intent on portraying him as a cold blooded killer who planned the murder of Oswald rather than a man under tremendous grief who acted on the spur-of-the-moment. The people in high positions point, well the Commissioners were in ‘high positions’ and Ruby thought that they were trying to portray him in a certain way. It’s also a fact that when talking about his being in danger he pointed to The John Birch Society and General Walker.


You are badly and completely mistaken.

When Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he obviously did not mean the Warren Commission!

He meant the people who were behind the assassination of Oswald, not people who were investigating it!

He obviously did not mean that the Warren Commission had an ulterior motive for putting him in the position he was in - in jail and facing the death penalty.

And that means that Ruby was indeed alleging that there had been a conspiracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't said the Zapruder film is fake.

If it has been tampered with, changing Greer's and Kellerman's actions would surely have been beyond anyone trying to alter the film.

Well if it hasn’t been faked, and it provably hasn’t, then we can clearly and unmistakably seen that there is no gaping wound to the back of Kennedy’s head.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well if it hasn’t been faked, and it provably hasn’t, then we can clearly and unmistakably seen that there is no gaping wound to the back of Kennedy’s head.

I don't think we can say that.

There may have been some tampering with it.

I have read of evidence of tampering with the back of Kennedy's head following the fatal shot.

Other allegations of tampering are more difficult to assess - I am referring to missing frames.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In reply to Herlock Shomes:


I wrote in # 1320:


'Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.'

And then, in answer to a reporter's question, 'Are these people in very high positions, Jack?', he responded, "Yes."

(Jack Ruby at Press Conference in March 1965)


You replied in # 1330:

He’s just talking about why he killed Kennedy (sic) and is complaining that Commission were intent on portraying him as a cold blooded killer who planned the murder of Oswald rather than a man under tremendous grief who acted on the spur-of-the-moment. The people in high positions point, well the Commissioners were in ‘high positions’ and Ruby thought that they were trying to portray him in a certain way. It’s also a fact that when talking about his being in danger he pointed to The John Birch Society and General Walker.


You are badly and completely mistaken.

When Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he obviously did not mean the Warren Commission!

He meant the people who were behind the assassination of Oswald, not people who were investigating it!

He obviously did not mean that the Warren Commission had an ulterior motive for putting him in the position he was in - in jail and facing the death penalty.

And that means that Ruby was indeed alleging that there had been a conspiracy.

You’re using your own interpretation rather than reading just what he actually said combined with reading the context included in the other things that he said. He clearly and in very simple English complained that the Commission were accusing him of planning to kill the President when he was telling him that he’d done it on the spur-of-the-moment. Just read it and stop ‘interpreting.’

Why didn’t he just say “I was part of a conspiracy to murder the Oswald but I’m not telling you who was involved.”

Why did he take a lie detector and state unequivocally that he wasn’t involved with anyone else in killing Oswald. You are exhibiting text book conspiracist think. You simply cannot take what someone says at face value. You are deliberating spinning what he said to insinuate a conspiracy.

There’s no point in trying to discuss this with a conspiracy theorist. Caz was absolutely on the button when she quoted Swift:

“You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think we can say that.

There may have been some tampering with it.

I have read of evidence of tampering with the back of Kennedy's head following the fatal shot.

Other allegations of tampering are more difficult to assess - I am referring to missing frames.

There are no missing frames in the Zapruder film….it’s another conspiracist lie to add to the huge list.

Its remarkable to consider if took the time to count up every single point against conspiracy and there are hundreds - how can they all be lies, fakes and forgeries. Does wide-ranging dishonesty could never have happened before in the history of the world.

The cries of fake and forgery are the last refuge of the clueless.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re using your own interpretation rather than reading just what he actually said combined with reading the context included in the other things that he said. He clearly and in very simple English complained that the Commission were accusing him of planning to kill the President when he was telling him that he’d done it on the spur-of-the-moment. Just read it and stop ‘interpreting.’

Why didn’t he just say “I was part of a conspiracy to murder the Oswald but I’m not telling you who was involved.”

Why did he take a lie detector and state unequivocally that he wasn’t involved with anyone else in killing Oswald. You are exhibiting text book conspiracist think. You simply cannot take what someone says at face value. You are deliberating spinning what he said to insinuate a conspiracy.

There’s no point in trying to discuss this with a conspiracy theorist. Caz was absolutely on the button when she quoted Swift:

“You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”

You can't be serious!?

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can't be serious!?

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

I’m not going to keep responding repeatedly to your waffle PI. You’re a conspiracy theorist.

AT NO TIME EVER, EVER, EVER DID RUBY SUGGEST, HINT AT, INFER OR SAY THAT HE WAS PART OF A CONSPIRACY. BUT HE DID SAY THAT HE WASN’T PART OF A CONSPIRACY AND HE PASSED A POLYGRAPH ON THE STRENGTH OF IT.

The point is s done.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I’m not going to keep responding repeatedly to your waffle PI. You’re a conspiracy theorist.

AT NO TIME EVER, EVER, EVER DID RUBY SUGGEST, HINT AT, INFER OR SAY THAT HE WAS PART OF A CONSPIRACY. BUT HE DID SAY THAT HE WASN’T PART OF A CONSPIRACY AND HE PASSED A POLYGRAPH ON THE STRENGTH OF IT.

The point is s done.

I haven't written waffle.

I asked a simple question:

Are you really saying that when Ruby talked of The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in being in very high positions, he meant the Warren Commission?

If you won't answer it, there is only one possible explanation: you have no satisfactory response, because it is quite obvious that you have made a bad mistake in misinterpreting what Ruby said at the press conference.