JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[jason_c]

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

I said the pristine bullet was a lie, I did not say the pic was a lie. Please, next time paraphrase accurately what I say.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Jason,

Suggestion: Get a tape measure and lock it at 35 inches. This is the length of an unassembled Carcano. Now hold it in your hand with the end towards the ground. Witness said it didn't touch the ground. How did that work out for you? Next, cup it in your hand and try to fit the other end under your armpit. That's what the other witness observed. Did it fit? I suspect not.

Herlock is very accepting of little mistakes made by the apologists but will not have a bar of any mistake such as the curtain rod story being another time. The witnesses held to their testimony that the bag was 24" to 27" and not long enough for a rifle. But, of course, the apologists claim they were mistaken. Curiously, they cannot produce any witnesses to testify that the bag was 35" or more.

Cheers, George

[cobalt]

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.


I think that’s a fairly accurate description of what actually happened, although more than one shooter would have been required. A previous attempt in Chicago had to be aborted at the last minute when JFK cancelled his visit.

I think one weakness in HS’ reasoning is that he continues to assume that Oswald was part of the conspiracy and therefore an obvious weak link. But Oswald saw himself as a ‘patsy’ because he was not part of the conspiracy. Shooting JFK was one part of the conspiracy, but the public would never have swallowed the cold blooded assassination outlined above. Creating a narrative of the lone gunman as a smokescreen was essential. That was the role assigned to Oswald, something he realized once he was cornered in the cinema.

As for Oswald being a ‘minor’ player within CIA circles, what we know contradicts this. He was selected for a spying mission inside the USSR, in the guise of a disaffected US citizen, which very few were entrusted to do. And he was significant enough to be impersonated (according to J. Edgar Hoover) in Mexico City prior to the assassination.

[GBinOz]

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.

Can you point me to where you answered any of the 5 numbered questions raised in post 489? I must have missed those replies.

[GBinOz]

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.


I think that’s a fairly accurate description of what actually happened, although more than one shooter would have been required. A previous attempt in Chicago had to be aborted at the last minute when JFK cancelled his visit.

I think one weakness in HS’ reasoning is that he continues to assume that Oswald was part of the conspiracy and therefore an obvious weak link. But Oswald saw himself as a ‘patsy’ because he was not part of the conspiracy. Shooting JFK was one part of the conspiracy, but the public would never have swallowed the cold blooded assassination outlined above. Creating a narrative of the lone gunman as a smokescreen was essential. That was the role assigned to Oswald, something he realized once he was cornered in the cinema.

As for Oswald being a ‘minor’ player within CIA circles, what we know contradicts this. He was selected for a spying mission inside the USSR, in the guise of a disaffected US citizen, which very few were entrusted to do. And he was significant enough to be impersonated (according to J. Edgar Hoover) in Mexico City prior to the assassination.

Well said cobalt. I suspect that Oswald may have thought that Tippet was sent to kill him. IMO, once he realised he was being set up as a patsy he would have been suspicious of all approaches by armed personnel.

Cheers, George

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,

Suggestion: Get a tape measure and lock it at 35 inches. This is the length of an unassembled Carcano. Now hold it in your hand with the end towards the ground. Witness said it didn't touch the ground. How did that work out for you? Next, cup it in your hand and try to fit the other end under your armpit. That's what the other witness observed. Did it fit? I suspect not.

Herlock is very accepting of little mistakes made by the apologists but will not have a bar of any mistake such as the curtain rod story being another time. The witnesses held to their testimony that the bag was 24" to 27" and not long enough for a rifle. But, of course, the apologists claim they were mistaken. Curiously, they cannot produce any witnesses to testify that the bag was 35" or more.

Cheers, George

Let's assume I'm holding such a locked tape measure(35 inches) in my hands towards the ground. The words 'towards the ground' are rather important here. Towards the ground is a general direction rather than a specific direction. It could be interpreted as directly down or at a slight angle. Whatever Oswald held in his hand 'towards the ground' I assume he's not wanting the end dragging along the ground. He'd risk damaging a) perfectly good curtain rods or b) the barrel of a rifle he's about to assassinate the President with. Cards on the table. I suspect I'd be able to carry neither rods or rifle in such a manner(directly towards the ground) without dragging them on the actual ground. However, at a slight angle I suspect I would be able to. As for under the armpit; again these were rather casual observances. What is carried partly beyond the armpit and out the back could easily be mistaken for lodged against the armpit.

[GBinOz]

A little while ago I watched "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" on YouTube. This was on Herlock's urging as it featured his hero and minor deity, Bugliosi. It is in 23 parts but the most interesting was part 22, the testimony of Edwin Lopez who was in 77-78 a research investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Lopez was still subject to the Secrecy Act but answered most questions, some of which were ambush questions by Bugliosi who he made look foolish. The Video is only nine minutes in length and would be an eye opener for anyone. It is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_vJqHPJHc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Let's assume I'm holding such a locked tape measure(35 inches) in my hands towards the ground. The words 'towards the ground' are rather important here. Towards the ground is a general direction rather than a specific direction. It could be interpreted as directly down or at a slight angle. Whatever Oswald held in his hand 'towards the ground' I assume he's not wanting the end dragging along the ground. He'd risk damaging a) perfectly good curtain rods or b) the barrel of a rifle he's about to assassinate the President with. Cards on the table. I suspect I'd be able to carry neither rods or rifle in such a manner(directly towards the ground) without dragging them on the actual ground. However, at a slight angle I suspect I would be able to. As for under the armpit; again these were rather casual observances. What is carried partly beyond the armpit and out the back could easily be mistaken for lodged against the armpit.

When holding a package of some weight by its top end I would suggest that gravity would ensure that it was hanging directly down. Wouldn't the package sticking up about 8" above the shoulder be somewhat conspicuous? With the butt cupped in your hand, wouldn't the weight make it fall backwards if it were behind the armpit?

[jason_c]

When holding a package of some weight by its top end I would suggest that gravity would ensure that it was hanging directly down. Wouldn't the package sticking up about 8" above the shoulder be somewhat conspicuous? With the butt cupped in your hand, wouldn't the weight make it fall backwards if it were behind the armpit?

Any reason to assume he'd be holding a rifle by it's barrel? If he's holding the rifle as most would hold a rifle it's natural to hold it at an angle, making sure it does not scrape along the ground. If the butt of a rifle were held tightly between the armpit I assume it could be held in such a manner for a brief time at least without falling backwards. I'm assuming this as I have never attempted to inconspicuously hold a rifle in such a manner. I do think it very strange that of all the days Oswald carried a package in the rough shape of a rifle to work it just happened to be the same day the President was assassinated yards away from Oswald's place of work. Do you at least agree something appears to have been going on there? Whoever decided Oswald was to be the patsy was very fortunate Oswald just happened to take packaged curtain rods into work that very same day.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Two people saw the package - it was large and bulky and not a pack of sandwiches - Oswald made the nonsensical ‘curtain rods’ lie - no package was seen with Oswald he fled the scene after he’d killed Kennedy - he pretended not to know that the President was coming - he lied about eating with Junior Jarman - he leaves his wedding wrong and $170 - he dashed ahead into the Depository.

And you quibble about the measurement of the package?! Neither Frazier or Randle whipped out a tape measure when they briefly saw it.

This was Oswald carrying the rifle. Beyond even the slightest doubt. You would have to be the worlds most gullible person to believe otherwise. Who would anyone favour as a liar? Frazier and Randle or Oswald. A categorically proven murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said cobalt. I suspect that Oswald may have thought that Tippet was sent to kill him. IMO, once he realised he was being set up as a patsy he would have been suspicious of all approaches by armed personnel.

Cheers, George

Fantasy. Oswald transparently murdered him because he matched the description given by Brennan and he was about to be arrested.

The ‘once he realised he was being set up as a patsy’ is the conspiracist get out clause to explain why this ‘innocent’ man picked up his revolver.

At what point would he have ‘realised’ that he’d been set up? Because of the gun shots from the 6th floor? That would mean that he knew that he could have been connected to the gun that was up there. So if he knew that the gun was up there what did he think that it was for?

If it wasn’t for that reason why would shots, that Marrion Baker believed had come from the roof, have incriminated Oswald?

So again, when did he conclude that he was a patsy? On the bus….in the taxi….did his landlady tell him?

Conspiracists are so busy quibbling of details that can be disputed and debated for ever but they just can’t answer the obvious bigger questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A little while ago I watched "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" on YouTube. This was on Herlock's urging as it featured his hero and minor deity, Bugliosi. It is in 23 parts but the most interesting was part 22, the testimony of Edwin Lopez who was in 77-78 a research investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Lopez was still subject to the Secrecy Act but answered most questions, some of which were ambush questions by Bugliosi who he made look foolish. The Video is only nine minutes in length and would be an eye opener for anyone. It is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_vJqHPJHc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

Cheers, George

Like all conspiracy theorists you really appear to have an issue with Bugliosi. You’ll listen to idiots like Groden though.

On the trial…..remind me of the verdict again.

If Oswald was alive today and was put on trial there’s not a jury on the planet that would acquit him. As guilty as the Yorkshire Ripper was. Not a shred of doubt.

Eventually the world will tire of insane conspiracist lies and manipulations. Even the suggestion of corruption in the Warren Commission is madness. It’s fashionable these days to be a conspiracist opposing big bad government. Conspiracy theorists are sheep who don’t believe in errors or misinterpretation. Everything is sinister. It’s a sad reflection on modern life that we have this dishonest bandwagon of an industry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you point me to where you answered any of the 5 numbered questions raised in post 489? I must have missed those replies.

Absolutely staggering George. I’ve answered so many of yours and Fishy’s points and I’ve done it in some detail. Neither you or Fishy have responded to one single point or question of mine.

Remind me of the rules again George. It appears to be - you ask and I answer, I ask and you and Fishy ignore.

Yes I missed those 5 questions amongst the numerous that I’ve answered.

On point 5 - Hoover made a mistake. I know that you’re allergic to the idea of errors George but there’s nothing I can do about that. He assumed that the bullet was on Kennedy’s trolley when it was actually Connally’s. Where it fell from Connally’s body. After Lee Harvey Oswald shot him.

[DJA]

The Bureau - Only For Sheep (1981) - YouTube

[cobalt]

The reason for Tippit stopping Oswald (if it was Oswald, which many doubt) could hardly have been on the basis of Brennan’s description. Tippit’s penchant for being miles off his ascribed beat is well documented and he remains a mysterious figure in the JFK narrative. Tippit’s movements on the day are as puzzling as Oswald’s.

If it was Oswald, I think Tippit’s instinct as a policeman told him there was something shifty about Oswald’s demeanour which, as HS has endlessly reminded us, was certainly the case regarding Oswald’s actions on the day. Or perhaps Tippit recognised him as the hostile customer from the café where, coincidentally, they had eaten a few days earlier.

Oswald’s fake ID on arrest (disputed since he also left fake ID at the Tippit shooting to help the police!) and a dollar bill cut in half all point to an arranged meeting with a handler. None of that makes Oswald innocent of murder but it undermines the WC narrative of the lone, disaffected gunman.