JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[jason_c]

I totally agree Jason. It’s certainly possible that, if Oswald was in some way connected to the intelligence agencies (in some minor way) or, as has been suggested, a warning about Oswald possibly being a danger was ignored or missed in error, then yes they might certainly have tried to cover their own arses. I’d say that would be plausible. And people seeing any hint of reluctance to cooperate or what looked like an attempt to obfuscate and bingo….. we have a conspiracy. Which is a conspiracy of course but not the massive, wide-ranging, complex, completely incompetent and totally unbelievable one to kill Kennedy that’s usually suggested. I can’t believe that one for a second and the evidence against it is like Mount Everest.

There is no doubt Oswald had links to intelligence agencies, they were at the very least keeping him under observation. Now, if I know my intelligence agencies I'm certain there will have been a variety of people in and around Oswald in Texas who also had links to intelligence agencies. I would say the issue is muddied by Oswald bringing back from Russia a wife who barely spoke any English. This Russian wife will have befriended(or been befriended by) individuals in the US ex-pat Russian community and Russian speakers in the US. These two groups of people were filled to the brim with individuals who had intelligence agency links. Now, I think this is all fairly typical tactics of a competent intelligence agency. Those looking for a conspiracy to kill the President will see it all as something much darker.

[GBinOz]

Wheres the picture of the flattened bullet on one side . ?

Here it is. The official photograph from the WC.


Hey...wait a minute.....

[GBinOz]

The Neely Street photograph showing Oswald holding the rifle and carrying a revolver. Yes, Neely Street, the only address that Oswald omitted when asked about the places he’d lived. When he actually falsely extended by 3 months his occupation at his address before Neely Street so that it could be expunged from the records.

Conspiracy theorists led by people like Groden try and claim ‘fake.’ It’s worth noting that Robert Blakey, a top Notre Dame law professor and Chief Counsel and Director of the HSCA, said in the National Enquirer that Groden had lied about his credentials and that “Groden’s ability to interpret photographs is nil.” The same Groden who was utterly discredited at the OJ Simpson trial. The same Groden who Fishy quoted heavily.

The photographs were sent to top labs at Stanford University, the University of Southern California and the Rochester Institute of Technology. All of whom verified them as genuine. The conspiracists still yell ‘fake.’ Oswald’s friend Michael Paine said that he’d seen one of the photos as early as April 1963 (some pre-planning there for the conspiracists) Marina Oswald said that she remembered taking the photos but she couldn’t recall how many she’d taken though.

In 1967 as part of the CBS TV special (the one where the riflemen recreated an beat Oswald’s performance with the rifle) went to the backyard of 214 Neely Street to see if a replica of the photos could be achieved. In the photo that they took the shadows fell in exactly the same way as in the Oswald photo. (They still yell fake!)

Then, to cap it off, in 1977 a copy of one the the photos was found in the possessions of Oswald’s friend and mentor George DeMohrenschildt. On the back we’re the words “To my friend George from Lee Oswald.” The handwriting was checked by a HSCA expert who pronounced it genuine.

You would think that there would come a time when these increasingly hollow and desperate cries of “fake” would stop, but on they go.

…….
Above is the falsified evidence and a character assassination. For what actually transpired, have a look here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhMtA1ucVs&ab_channel=firstlightvideo

A) I mean, ask yourself honestly, what would plotters do if they wanted to kill the President and had all of those resources to hand? Would they do something along the lines of…Find one of the thousand of upper floor rooms in any town on any one of Kennedy’s trips. Find a top quality assassin. Equip him with the best gun that money can by. One or 2 shots and it’s done. Have a car waiting out the back to get him away from the scene then either get him out of the country with a name change or kill him. No paper trail. No witnesses. No disputed medical evidence. No disputed ballistics evidence. No questions about the assassin and his past.Very few in the know reducing the risk of someone blabbing.Or
Above is what actually happened, but with a triangulation of gunmen as is usual when the job has to be completed successfully. But it is not the story that the government wanted released to the public. A professional hit could have incited the public against a foreign power and resulted in a world war. Anyone who is interested in the truth will see this in the memorandums (already posted) from LBJ, Hoover and Katzenbach directing the direction in which the investigation is to be steered.

B) You find an allegedly not very good shot and equip him with an allegedly not very good rifle. To do this you go to the trouble of laying a trail of purchase to a store in Chicago to a name which is on several cards in the possession of the man that you yourself selected. Then you leave yourself the problem of explaining away his strange behaviour and lies before the assassination and you let him wonder around the streets to get arrested before getting himself blamed for the murder of a police officer. Then you parade what is allegedly the wrong type of rifle on national TV. You put a gunman on the Knoll in front of a large car park and with the public standing feet away in front and all around the Plaza you have people with still and movie cameras. Not only do you not mind the risk of your man being seen or photographed but you introduce the need to cover up the medical and ballistics findings which means having control over dozens if not hundreds of people. Then you gather together some of the most respected men in the country and get them to take part in a fraudulent and treasonable investigation confident that none of them will break ranks and that none of the investigators might let something slip.
The creation of a "patsy" for anyone with eyes to see.


How the hell can anyone even begin to believe this? 60 years of utter fantasy. Embarrassing nonsense

Repeat this three times while looking in a mirror.

Evidence rather than woulds and wouldn'ts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Problem is Herlock, you ignore responses and just keep re-presenting the same debunked arguments along with unsubstantiated claims. You harp on two witnesses seeing a bulky package. I present a reference to actual witness testimony where they are describing both how Oswald carried the package and both estimating the size to about two feet, and both saying that the bag was too small to have contained an unassembled rifle (35"). But you just ignore this evidence as though you didn't read it, which may be the case.

You have made a concerted effort to ridicule the eyewitness testimony of Audrey Bell. Can you enlighten us all to some answers about the magic bullet:
1. How much did it weigh in grains?
2. Do you know what a grain is?
3. How much does an unfired 6.5 Carcano bullet weigh?
4. Are you aware that Connolly's doctors said that Connolly took more fragments in his wrist to the grave than were missing from the magic bullet? They wanted to extract them but Connolly's wife refused permission.
5. Did you miss, or ignore, that Hoover said in his phone conversation with LBJ that the bullet was found in Kennedy's stretcher, and the doctor's believed it had been dislodged during the heart massage? Did the bullet do a U-turn after it hit Connolly in the leg and end up back in Kennedy's body? This was long before Spectre came up with his concocted theory to explain how there couldn't have been more than three shots. Or is this to be added to your list of little mistakes?

You keep advocating that I should be reading apologist books. Unlike yourself, I lived through these times. The against the odds win by a young catholic President, the Cuban Missile crisis, where even in Australia there was fear that it would escalate into a nuclear holocaust, and the devastating news of the assassinations of of JFK,MLK and RFK. My father vehemently supported the WC, my Grandmother was profoundly unconvinced. I have followed this case live, and the developments as they happened, and don't feel the need to read the distorted ramblings of the likes of Posner.

There are only so many times that one can present factual evidence to a person who deals only in speculation, unsubstantiated claims, likelihoods, distortion of evidence and character assassination. Be assured that the silence and moving on to other topics is not because valid have been presented. Quite the opposite.

It’s difficult to continue George when you appear to be reading a different thread to the one that I’m posting on. These points are ‘debunked’ to your satisfaction but not to everyone’s. I ‘harp on’ about 2 witnesses because in Court these 2 witnesses would sink Oswald on their own. I have read the evidence George but I didn’t read it with the conspiracy goggles on.

Firstly, Frazier had seen Oswald carrying his lunch packet to work on numerous occasions and he was absolutely certain that on this particular occasion the package that he was carrying was much larger and bulkier and that Oswald told him that it contained curtain rods. He admitted though, pointing to an honestly given opinion, that he only saw it briefly and so it’s hardly surprising that he could give the exact size. His sister also mentioned the way that Oswald held the package when she saw it, this would explain the possible error on the size.

But to accept your point we would have to accept that, a) Frazier was mistaken or lying that the package wasn’t Oswald’s lunchbox and that it was large and bulky, b) that Linnie Mae Randle also lied or was mistaken about Oswald carrying a large, bulky package, and c) that Frazier lied (for no reason) about Oswald’s ‘curtain rods’ story.

No unbiased person could accept the above. And that’s without taking into consideration the packaging found on the 6th floor sans curtain rods and with Oswald’s prints on.

…..

I didn’t ‘ridicule’ Nurse Bell, George. But why do you and other conspiracy theorists accept unquestioningly the opinions of a Nurse and yet you ignore the conclusion of Dr. Humes, who actually performed the autopsy (usually resorting to the beyond weak ‘he was in on it’ explanation) Who’s was the greater knowledge? Bell or Humes? Who would a Judge and jury favour?

…..

Ill reiterate George……you and Fishy appear to be playing the role of question masters here, throwing out question after question, and I’ve responded in some detail to each and every one. You might not like the answers because they don’t fit your script but I’ve still took the time to respond whilst you have both ducked, dodged, and ignored every single question and point that I’ve made.

You may have lived through those events George but you’ve clearly and provably spent years reading only conspiracy books. I’ve looked at both sides.

I was in my late 30’s when I read my first assassination book (possibly 40) I had zero previous interest in the case. I had zero interest in USA politics or Kennedy - I still don’t. I’ve never considered myself political either (I mistrust pretty much all politicians) but I’ve always voted on the left so I can’t be accused of being a conservative. I have absolutely zero reason for simply ‘supporting the establishment’ of a country that I have no connection to and have never visited. I approached the subject with an open mind. But unlike some I haven’t booked a ride on the conspiracy bandwagon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here it is. The official photograph from the WC.


Hey...wait a minute.....

Shown from one side. Well done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no doubt Oswald had links to intelligence agencies, they were at the very least keeping him under observation. Now, if I know my intelligence agencies I'm certain there will have been a variety of people in and around Oswald in Texas who also had links to intelligence agencies. I would say the issue is muddied by Oswald bringing back from Russia a wife who barely spoke any English. This Russian wife will have befriended(or been befriended by) individuals in the US ex-pat Russian community and Russian speakers in the US. These two groups of people were filled to the brim with individuals who had intelligence agency links. Now, I think this is all fairly typical tactics of a competent intelligence agency. Those looking for a conspiracy to kill the President will see it all as something much darker.

Exactly Jason. With the emphasis being on ‘looking for a conspiracy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok so it continues. This totally one-sided game of ‘ask Herlock.’ You and Fishy steadfastly refuse to respond to any question or point that I’ve made and I’m now tired of it. George’s post # 491 for example shows 17 cut and pasted points which would take me hours to respond to in the required detail. These have already been dealt with by Bugliosi (and others)…..remember? In the book that both George and Fishy point blank refuse to read because it’s not conspiracist drivel. Little points are conveniently ignored too, like the blood spray from the head shot which is clearly shown to spray forwards as it would from a shot to the rear. Like the fact that the shots have been recreated and bettered. Like the fact that CGI recreations clearly and perfectly lined up the single bullet. Like the witness who was in the car park area who saw no one behind the fence.

I’ll conclude this barrage of one-sided nonsense by reiterating my ignored point about our conspirators.


What would any self-respecting conspirators do when they were planning the most significant assassination in history?

1. …Find one of the thousand of upper floor rooms in any town on any one of Kennedy’s trips. Find a top quality assassin. Equip him with the best gun that money can by. One or 2 shots and it’s done. Have a car waiting out the back to get him away from the scene then either get him out of the country with a name change or kill him. No paper trail. No witnesses. No disputed medical evidence. No disputed ballistics evidence. No questions about the assassin and his past.Very few in the know reducing the risk of someone blabbing.

Or…


B) You find an allegedly not very good shot and equip him with an allegedly not very good rifle. To do this you go to the trouble of laying a trail of purchase to a store in Chicago to a name which is on several cards in the possession of the man that you yourself selected. Then you leave yourself the problem of explaining away his strange behaviour and lies before the assassination and you let him wonder around the streets to get arrested before getting himself blamed for the murder of a police officer. Then you parade what is allegedly the wrong type of rifle on national TV. You put a gunman on the Knoll in front of a large car park and with the public standing feet away in front and all around the Plaza you have people with still and movie cameras. Not only do you not mind the risk of your man being seen or photographed but you introduce the need to cover up the medical and ballistics findings which means having control over dozens if not hundreds of people. Then you gather together some of the most respected men in the country and get them to take part in a fraudulent and treasonable investigation confident that none of them will break ranks and that none of the investigators might let something slip.


George, Fishy and the conspiracy crew go for B)

On what planet?

[GBinOz]

You’re using the usual conspiracy theorist tricks and dodges Fishy.

Three expert examiners proved that Oswald’s prints were on the packaging found on the 6th floor. Packaging that wasn’t used by the TSBD. How much more evidence do you need? Film footage of Oswald carrying the parcel onto the 6th floor perhaps? CT’s use vague, insignificant points to hint at conspiracy but when it comes to things that point to Oswald’s guilt you demand a ludicrously high standard of proof.

So we have 3 experts matching Oswald’s fingerprints and 2 people with absolutely no reason to lie who saw him with the bulky passage that he put on the back seat of the car. One of those witnesses also said that he told the obviously fabricated story about curtain rods. How many people are involved in this ridiculous plot Fishy?

Lieutenant Day used fingerprint powder on the bag, but found “no legible prints” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.267). Robert Studebaker also failed to identify any worthwhile prints:

Mr Ball : Did you lift any prints? Mr Studebaker : There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print. Mr Ball : The print of a finger or palm or what? Mr Studebaker : You couldn’t tell, it was so small.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.144)

The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):

• a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
• and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).

Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand.

How Oswald Carried the Paper Bag
Posner’s interpretation:

He [Oswald] held one end of the brown–paper–wrapped object tucked under his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground.

(Case Closed, p. 223)

What the witnesses actually said:

Mr Ball : What was he [Oswald] carrying? Mrs Randle : He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. Mr Ball : Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? Mrs Randle : That is right. Mr Ball : And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? Mrs Randle : No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that. Mr Ball : And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? Mrs Randle : Yes, sir.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.248)

Mr Ball : When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr Frazier : Yes, sir.
Mr Ball : One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to fold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr Frazier : No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr Ball : But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package? Mr Frazier : No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr Ball : Cupped in his hand?
Mr Frazier : Right.
(ibid., p.239)

The witnesses describe two separate incidents:

1. When Oswald approached the house, only Randle saw him. Oswald was holding the top of the package, with the bottom nearly touching the ground.
2. When Oswald approached the Texas School Book Depository about 30 minutes later, only Frazier saw him. Oswald had the bottom of the package cupped in his hand, with the top under his armpit.

Both witnesses’ descriptions are consistent with a package that contained either curtain rods or Oswald’s lunch. Frazier and Randle were emphatic that the package was nowhere near long enough to have contained the rifle.

So what did Posner do? He selected incompatible elements from the two accounts to give the false impression that the package was long enough to contain the rifle:

He [Oswald] held one end of the brown–paper–wrapped object tucked under his armpit, and [half an hour earlier, holding the package in a quite different way,] the other end did not quite touch the ground.

Shall we let the readers decide who is submitting "tricks and dodges" and who, apart from Posner, is submitting outright lies. No speculation here, evidence from the Warren Commision.

[GBinOz]

Shown from one side. Well done.

Are you addressing this comment to me? This is the official evidence from the Warren Commission. Do you have something that disputes this official evidence?

[GBinOz]

You and Fishy steadfastly refuse to respond to any question or point that I’ve made

Like the witness who was in the car park area who saw no one behind the fence.

I’ll conclude this barrage of one-sided nonsense by reiterating my ignored point about our conspirators.

What witness, and with what testimony?

Ignored point? Seriously?? You reiterate, as usual, on points already answered.

[GBinOz]

I ‘harp on’ about 2 witnesses because in Court these 2 witnesses would sink Oswald on their own. I have read the evidence George but I didn’t read it with the conspiracy goggles on.
Bugliosi and Posner are speculating and rarely present evidence.

Firstly, Frazier had seen Oswald carrying his lunch packet to work on numerous occasions and he was absolutely certain that on this particular occasion the package that he was carrying was much larger and bulkier and that Oswald told him that it contained curtain rods. He admitted though, pointing to an honestly given opinion, that he only saw it briefly and so it’s hardly surprising that he could give the exact size. His sister also mentioned the way that Oswald held the package when she saw it, this would explain the possible error on the size.

But to accept your point we would have to accept that, a) Frazier was mistaken or lying that the package wasn’t Oswald’s lunchbox and that it was large and bulky, b) that Linnie Mae Randle also lied or was mistaken about Oswald carrying a large, bulky package, and c) that Frazier lied (for no reason) about Oswald’s ‘curtain rods’ story.

No unbiased person could accept the above. And that’s without taking into consideration the packaging found on the 6th floor sans curtain rods and with Oswald’s prints on.

…..
The actual interrogation of the witnesses does not support your contentions. Read the evidence rather than Bugliosi.

I didn’t ‘ridicule’ Nurse Bell, George. But why do you and other conspiracy theorists accept unquestioningly the opinions of a Nurse and yet you ignore the conclusion of Dr. Humes, who actually performed the autopsy (usually resorting to the beyond weak ‘he was in on it’ explanation) Who’s was the greater knowledge? Bell or Humes? Who would a Judge and jury favour?

…..
I would have expected that the autopsy of the President of the United States would have been conducted by the top pathologists in the country. None of the 3 pathologists that conducted the autopsy had even one case in their history involving gun shot wounds. Their conclusions did not agree with those of the pathologists at Parklands who saw the body before it was forcibly and illegally removed by the Secret Service.

You may have lived through those events George but you’ve clearly and provably spent years reading only conspiracy books. I’ve looked at both sides.
Clearly and provably?? This speaks volumes about your standards of clarity and provability. FYI I own only two books, "Rush to Judgement" and "Mortal Error". The later I bought only because it was in $2 bargain bin, and I've never actually read it. I examine evidence. I don't read books containing people's opinions.

I was in my late 30’s when I read my first assassination book (possibly 40) I had zero previous interest in the case. I had zero interest in USA politics or Kennedy - I still don’t. I’ve never considered myself political either (I mistrust pretty much all politicians) but I’ve always voted on the left so I can’t be accused of being a conservative. I have absolutely zero reason for simply ‘supporting the establishment’ of a country that I have no connection to and have never visited. I approached the subject with an open mind. But unlike some I haven’t booked a ride on the conspiracy bandwagon.

In your last paragraph we share some common ground, and some not so much. Until recently I had no interest in American politics. Trump prompted me to look at the American system of primaries and electoral college with some amazement. I followed Kennedy since his election. I also mistrust pretty much all politicians, but conservatives far more than the left. I also have absolutely zero reason for simply ‘supporting the establishment’ of a country that I have no connection to and have never visited. I also approached the subject with an open mind. But unlike some I haven’t booked a ride on the government coverup, but chosen to examine the facts of the witness testimony plus the medical and forensic evidence.

[jason_c]

Lieutenant Day used fingerprint powder on the bag, but found “no legible prints” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.267). Robert Studebaker also failed to identify any worthwhile prints:

Mr Ball : Did you lift any prints? Mr Studebaker : There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print. Mr Ball : The print of a finger or palm or what? Mr Studebaker : You couldn’t tell, it was so small.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.144)

The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):

• a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
• and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).

Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand.

How Oswald Carried the Paper Bag
Posner’s interpretation:

He [Oswald] held one end of the brown–paper–wrapped object tucked under his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground.

(Case Closed, p. 223)

What the witnesses actually said:

Mr Ball : What was he [Oswald] carrying? Mrs Randle : He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. Mr Ball : Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he? Mrs Randle : That is right. Mr Ball : And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package? Mrs Randle : No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that. Mr Ball : And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground? Mrs Randle : Yes, sir.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.248)

Mr Ball : When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?
Mr Frazier : Yes, sir.
Mr Ball : One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to fold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?
Mr Frazier : No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.
Mr Ball : But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package? Mr Frazier : No; he had it cupped in his hand.
Mr Ball : Cupped in his hand?
Mr Frazier : Right.
(ibid., p.239)

The witnesses describe two separate incidents:

1. When Oswald approached the house, only Randle saw him. Oswald was holding the top of the package, with the bottom nearly touching the ground.
2. When Oswald approached the Texas School Book Depository about 30 minutes later, only Frazier saw him. Oswald had the bottom of the package cupped in his hand, with the top under his armpit.

Both witnesses’ descriptions are consistent with a package that contained either curtain rods or Oswald’s lunch. Frazier and Randle were emphatic that the package was nowhere near long enough to have contained the rifle.

So what did Posner do? He selected incompatible elements from the two accounts to give the false impression that the package was long enough to contain the rifle:

He [Oswald] held one end of the brown–paper–wrapped object tucked under his armpit, and [half an hour earlier, holding the package in a quite different way,] the other end did not quite touch the ground.

Shall we let the readers decide who is submitting "tricks and dodges" and who, apart from Posner, is submitting outright lies. No speculation here, evidence from the Warren Commision.

What I do not understand about this is 'descriptions are consistent with a package that contained curtain rods or Oswald's lunch'. This to me does not make sense. It's virtually impossible to get these two types of packages mixed up. Curtain rods are curtain rod length, a parcel containing lunch is the size of a small Tupperware container. One account is very wrong. Also, I am in no way an expert on rifles or curtain rods. However, I strongly suspect if either a rifle or curtain rods were held inside a package they could easily be confused for each other to the casual observer. The casual observer being a rather important point here. It's not as if we are insisting the witness is confusing a package containing curtain rods with a package the size of a match box.

[jason_c]

Shown from one side. Well done.

Agreed. The bullet is nowhere near as pristine as that pic suggests. The pristine bullet is a lie, not a mistake, a blatant lie.

[GBinOz]

Ok so it continues. This totally one-sided game of ‘ask Herlock.’ You and Fishy steadfastly refuse to respond to any question or point that I’ve made and I’m now tired of it. George’s post # 491 for example shows 17 cut and pasted points which would take me hours to respond to in the required detail. These have already been dealt with by Bugliosi (and others)…..remember? In the book that both George and Fishy point blank refuse to read because it’s not conspiracist drivel. Little points are conveniently ignored too, like the blood spray from the head shot which is clearly shown to spray forwards as it would from a shot to the rear. Like the fact that the shots have been recreated and bettered. Like the fact that CGI recreations clearly and perfectly lined up the single bullet. Like the witness who was in the car park area who saw no one behind the fence.

I’ll conclude this barrage of one-sided nonsense by reiterating my ignored point about our conspirators.


What would any self-respecting conspirators do when they were planning the most significant assassination in history?

1. …Find one of the thousand of upper floor rooms in any town on any one of Kennedy’s trips. Find a top quality assassin. Equip him with the best gun that money can by. One or 2 shots and it’s done. Have a car waiting out the back to get him away from the scene then either get him out of the country with a name change or kill him. No paper trail. No witnesses. No disputed medical evidence. No disputed ballistics evidence. No questions about the assassin and his past.Very few in the know reducing the risk of someone blabbing.

Or…


B) You find an allegedly not very good shot and equip him with an allegedly not very good rifle. To do this you go to the trouble of laying a trail of purchase to a store in Chicago to a name which is on several cards in the possession of the man that you yourself selected. Then you leave yourself the problem of explaining away his strange behaviour and lies before the assassination and you let him wonder around the streets to get arrested before getting himself blamed for the murder of a police officer. Then you parade what is allegedly the wrong type of rifle on national TV. You put a gunman on the Knoll in front of a large car park and with the public standing feet away in front and all around the Plaza you have people with still and movie cameras. Not only do you not mind the risk of your man being seen or photographed but you introduce the need to cover up the medical and ballistics findings which means having control over dozens if not hundreds of people. Then you gather together some of the most respected men in the country and get them to take part in a fraudulent and treasonable investigation confident that none of them will break ranks and that none of the investigators might let something slip.


George, Fishy and the conspiracy crew go for B)

On what planet?

Well, obviously on a different planet to your good self.

"George’s post # 491 for example shows 17 cut and pasted points which would take me hours to respond to in the required detail. These have already been dealt with by Bugliosi (and others)&#8230"

My point exactly. I could take hours to respond to your many comments and allegations only to have you just reiterate them as though I haven't replied, and claim to be ignored. I didn't go for B, and neither did Fishy. I thought I explained that A was what happened and B was what the government wanted the public to believe, as LBJ said, to prevent a war. Are you just skipping over replies in your haste to re-assert your almost religious devotion to the utterings of Bugliosi (and others).

[GBinOz]

Agreed. The bullet is nowhere near as pristine as that pic suggests. The pristine bullet is a lie, not a mistake, a blatant lie.

A blatant lie by the Warren Commission? It's the photo they submitted into evidence. How many other lies did they submit into evidence?