JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've also been shown on this thread a mountain of evidence other than that document of Oswald's connection to the CIA but ignored it . So I'll giggle some more

Please provide examples.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are no cracks.... Where did you get grey-blue from?

(HERLOCK SHOMES)


There are indeed cracks.

And your claim that the jacket allegedly worn by Oswald could have looked grey or brown is disproven, as I said, because the said jacket was grey-blue, not grey-brown.

Where did I get it from?

Why, from the Warren Commission itself!


EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
this jacket?

Yes…that’s the jacket that he left at the TSBD, the one that Frazier saw him wearing that morning. The one that he was wearing when Calloway saw him was an entirely different jacket. Why would they have shown Frazier a jacket that he’d possibly never seen Oswald wearing.

Im guessing this will be responded to with silence? Certainly no admission that you’re wrong. Which you are. As usual.

[Fiver]

In this case the empirical observation that a human struck with great force- whether by a fist, car or bullet- will be thrown away from that force, not towards it.

The empirical evidence has repeatedly shown that bullets do not throw people around.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course he didn't,

The evidence at the crime scene doesn't support your opinion

That has also been shown of many post on this thread .

I see a pattern here .

Can anyone see it ?

Could it be the evidence and the amount of times one has to go over the same ground again ?

Yes I see a pattern. That you are utterly incapable of producing a thought of your own. You just listen to what George tells you….you like what you hear….and so assume it’s true.

The evidence that Oswald killed Tippit is simply overwhelming. People have been imprisoned or worse on a quarter of the evidence. Try looking at evidence objectively.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, posters just know the difference between a fake autopsy photo that contradicts that what ,medical expert opinion and eyewitness saw the President head and brain matter explode on the day .

Oh I get it…..the eyewitness that ID’d Oswald for the Tippit murder were all wrong but the eyewitnesses who saw Kennedy’s murder were all correct (except the ones that disagree with your position of course) A typically well reasoned approach from you.

Again more evidence of this have been made on this thread many times .

Unmitigated crap!

Experts trump you, George and PI. And experts tell us that the x-rays cannot have been faked. They didn’t even have the technology to do it. Get real.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) If you're wanting to pitch a lone gunman narrative, assembling a team of snipers is a vastly stupid way of attempting it. Every additional shooter is another person you have to get in and out undetected. Every additional weapon will require faking or removing all ballistic evidence. Every additional location will require faking or removing all ballistic evidence, plus all medical evidence.

Which means you need to bring in medical personnel from the nearest hospital as part of the conspiracy. Plus whoever is going to do the autopsy. Plus those members of the Dallas PD hat handle crime scenes. You also have to keep these additional dozen or more people quiet for the rest of their lives.

And if any of the evidence leaves Dallas, you have know way of knowing who will examine it. The Conspiracy would want to move heaven and earth to keep the autopsy, ballistics, and print evidence in the hands of people they have bought off. The rifle going to the FBI would be a probable disaster for the Conspiracy, yet Dallas PD who would have to be part of the Conspiracy let it happen. JFK's body being autopsied anywhere else would be a probable disaster for the Conspiracy, yet LBJ and the Secret Service insisted on it and Dallas PD who would have to be part of the Conspiracy let it happen.

Or they could just use a single shooter and not have to bring in dozens of additional Conspirators and not have to fake or destroy any evidence.

2) The best place to shoot from would be a place with a clear line of fire for the maximum amount of time, a stable firing platform, minimal obstructions between the firing position and the target, difficulty in spotting the shooter, ease of undetected escape, and minimal lateral (side to side) movement. The later is important because the more the target is moving across your field of vision, the more you have to adjust your aim and the greater the chance of missing.

The Manhole is excellent for escape, but poor in all other ways. It would be easily visible. Bracing with one hand would mean a one-handed shot. The limo itself would block line of sight. With extraordinary luck you might get one shot off with almost none of the target visible.

The Overpass is excellent in many ways - clear line of site along most of Dealey Plaza, no obstacles, minimal lateral movement, good bracing position. It also provides no concealment for the shooter, no way of escaping undetected.

The Book Depository had clear line of site along most of Dealey Plaza. The start of the route was partially obscured by trees. It had a stable firing platform. Good concealment from people outside the building, excellent concealment from inside due to stacks of boxes. Chance of undetected escape was good. Minimal lateral movement of the target.

The Daltex building was similar to the Book Depository. It had a slightly better line of fire. The target had slightly more lateral movement. It did not have as good of concealment from other people in the building. I don't know how many people were present, but chances of undetected escape were probably pretty good.

The Grassy Knoll had excellent cover against being detected from the front. It was wide open from the back - a shooter would have been easy to spot. It had better visibility than the Manhole, but street signs, concrete walls, and trees blocked much of the line of sight. Even the JFK movie, which fudges the position and time shows this. It also shows maximum lateral movement and no bracing position, making it a poor choice for accurate fire. It's also an inferior place for escape, the parking lot was full of cars and the shooter would have to take time to scoop up expended shell casings. They also couldn't just abandon the rifle, which is a problem for any second shooter location.

3) Making Oswald a patsy requires several things.

You have to ensure that he is at the Book Depository on the right day and time. Oswald's history shows that he was erratic enough that him doing something dumb and getting fired was a significant risk.

You have to ensure Oswald has no alibi for the time of the shooting. This is basically impossible, especially doing it without being detected by Oswald or anyone else in the Book Depository.

You have to plant a rifle, cartridges, fiber, and print evidence without being detected by Oswald or anyone else in the Book Depository.

You have to ensure that someone who looks like Oswald is seen with a rifle at the right time to have been the shooter, but escapes the building undetected.

The only way this has a slight chance of working is getting Oswald to meet you on the 6th floor at lunch time, hoping no one else saw you and that he didn't tell anyone. You then kill Oswald with his own pistol, fitted with a silencer and leave the body in the sniper's nest.

Instead, Oswald escapes the building undetected, kills Officer Tippett, tries to kill Officer McDonald, is not killed resisting arrest, is allowed to speak to the press, and isn't killed until over 45 hours after he is arrested.

4) You have to ensure none of the Conspirators get cold feet or have attacks of conscience before, during, or after the killing,

5) You have to have a motive. Just saying "regime change" doesn't cut it. The Conspirators need something important enough that they are willing to risk execution for. It has to be something they believe they could never get from JFK, but something they are near certain to get from his successor. And

Why is it that non-conspiracy theorists continually and consistently make better, well reasoned and thought out posts, without resorting to fanciful theorising, the manipulation of evidence, flat out lies and waffle?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
this jacket?

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1)



Yes…that’s the jacket that he left at the TSBD, the one that Frazier saw him wearing that morning. The one that he was wearing when Calloway saw him was an entirely different jacket. Why would they have shown Frazier a jacket that he’d possibly never seen Oswald wearing.

Im guessing this will be responded to with silence? Certainly no admission that you’re wrong. Which you are. As usual.


(HERLOCK SHOMES)



Why should I admit I am wrong when there is documentary proof that I am right and you are wrong? - as usual.



EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I don’t.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I don’t believe I have.



You like asking questions which start with: why would [someone] do something?

Well, he did do that something - the very thing you said he would not have done!

You asked, Why would they have shown Frazier a jacket that he’d possibly never seen Oswald wearing?

They did just that, as Frazier confirmed.

Im guessing this will be responded to with silence? Certainly no admission that you’re wrong. Which you are. As usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
this jacket?

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1)



Yes…that’s the jacket that he left at the TSBD, the one that Frazier saw him wearing that morning. The one that he was wearing when Calloway saw him was an entirely different jacket. Why would they have shown Frazier a jacket that he’d possibly never seen Oswald wearing.

Im guessing this will be responded to with silence? Certainly no admission that you’re wrong. Which you are. As usual.


(HERLOCK SHOMES)



Why should I admit I am wrong when there is documentary proof that I am right and you are wrong? - as usual.



EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238

Mr. BALL. I have here Commission’s 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize
this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I don’t.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir ; I don’t believe I have.



You like asking questions which start with: why would [someone] do something?

Well, he did do that something - the very thing you said he would not have done!

You asked, Why would they have shown Frazier a jacket that he’d possibly never seen Oswald wearing?

They did just that, as Frazier confirmed.

Im guessing this will be responded to with silence? Certainly no admission that you’re wrong. Which you are. As usual.

Ok. They showed Frazier a blue jacket and he said that he didn’t recognise it but he was clearly mistaken because the jacket that he left at the TSBD was categorically BLUE and so Frazier would have seen it that morning but the one that he had on when he killed Tippit and that he left under a car was GREY and, as those of us with eyes can see from the photograph…..the gray jacket did not look remotely blue.

Two jackets……one blue……….one grey…….both belonging to LHO……as confirmed by Marina.



The one that he had on when he killed Tippit was grey.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok. They showed Frazier a blue jacket and he said that he didn’t recognise it but he was clearly mistaken because the jacket that he left at the TSBD was categorically BLUE and so Frazier would have seen it that morning but the one that he had on when he killed Tippit and that he left under a car was GREY and, as those of us with eyes can see from the photograph…..the gray jacket did not look remotely blue.

Two jackets……one blue……….one grey…….both belonging to LHO……as confirmed by Marina.



The one that he had on when he killed Tippit was grey.

As you wish, except that dies not explain why a jacket which is so obviously grey to you should appear to be tan or brown to some of the people who supposedly saw it.

[Fiver]

Nonsense, Oswald didn't shoot Tippit.

There are 3 possibilities.

1) The Conspiracy killed Tippett. They have no motive for doing so.

2) A random person killed Tippett and the Conspiracy framed Oswald. The Conspiracy has no motive for doing so.

3) Oswald killed Tippett, probably to avoid arrest.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER SAW OSWALD WEARING THE JACKET HE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN


EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238




Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven’t.




MRS CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A BROWN JACKET.
SHE DID NOT IDENTIFY THE JACKET OSWALD WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN.



EVIDENCE OF MRS CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 6, P 457

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.




MRS HELEN MARKHAM TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER DID NOT WEAR THE JACKET THAT OSWALD WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN AND THAT THE MURDERER WORE A DARKER JACKET.



EVIDENCE OF MRS HELEN MARKHAM, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 3, P 312



Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did
you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No ; I did not.
Mr. BALL Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MABKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don’t think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.




BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A DARK SPORT COAT



EVIDENCE OF BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 3, P 347

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does .this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.




WILLIAM ARTHUR SMITH TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A SPORT COAT




EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM ARTHUR SMITH, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 7, P 85

Mr. BALL. What kind of clothes did he have on when he shot the officer?
Mr. SMITH. He had on dark pants--just a minute. He had on dark pants and
a sport coat of some kind.




FOUR WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE JACKET ALLEGEDLY WORN BY OSWALD WAS NOT WORN BY THE MURDERER AND A FIFTH WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT OSWALD NEVER WORE IT.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There are 3 possibilities.

1) The Conspiracy killed Tippett. They have no motive for doing so.

2) A random person killed Tippett and the Conspiracy framed Oswald. The Conspiracy has no motive for doing so.

3) Oswald killed Tippett, probably to avoid arrest.

(3) is not credible because the man who shot Tippit was not in any imminent danger of being arrested.

Not only did Tippit not draw his gun but, according to witnesses, he never made the slightest movement to suggest he was contemplating drawing it.

Whatever interest Tippit had in approaching the man, it had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

And we know Tippit had other things on his mind that morning and lunchtime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you wish, except that dies not explain why a jacket which is so obviously grey to you should appear to be tan or brown to some of the people who supposedly saw it.

Because it was a very light grey and tan is a very light brown. I’m not colour blind but I occasionally have slight difficulty differentiating between tones…..Ive mistaken grey for green, purple for brown and I, in part at least, make my living from drawing portraits (often in colour.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER SAW OSWALD WEARING THE JACKET HE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN


EVIDENCE OF BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 2, P 238




Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit No. 162, which can be described for the record as a gray jacket with zipper, have you seen Lee Oswald wear this jacket?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I haven’t.




MRS CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A BROWN JACKET.
SHE DID NOT IDENTIFY THE JACKET OSWALD WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN.



EVIDENCE OF MRS CHARLIE VIRGINIA DAVIS, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 6, P 457

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he had on?
Mrs. DAVIS. He had on a light-brown-tan jacket.




MRS HELEN MARKHAM TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER DID NOT WEAR THE JACKET THAT OSWALD WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE WORN AND THAT THE MURDERER WORE A DARKER JACKET.



EVIDENCE OF MRS HELEN MARKHAM, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 3, P 312



Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did
you ever see this before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No ; I did not.
Mr. BALL Does it look like, anything like, the jacket the man had on?
Mrs. MABKHAM. It is short, open down the front. But that jacket it is a darker jacket than that, I know it was.
Mr. BALL. You don’t think it was as light a jacket as that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, it was darker than that, I know it was.




BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A DARK SPORT COAT



EVIDENCE OF BARBARA JEANETTE DAVIS, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 3, P 347

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does .this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.




WILLIAM ARTHUR SMITH TESTIFIED THAT THE MURDERER WORE A SPORT COAT




EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM ARTHUR SMITH, WARREN COMMISSION VOL. 7, P 85

Mr. BALL. What kind of clothes did he have on when he shot the officer?
Mr. SMITH. He had on dark pants--just a minute. He had on dark pants and
a sport coat of some kind.




FOUR WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE JACKET ALLEGEDLY WORN BY OSWALD WAS NOT WORN BY THE MURDERER AND A FIFTH WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT OSWALD NEVER WORE IT.

‘It’s too late in the night to respond in length to this rubbish, so I’ll do it tomorrow.

How can so many witnesses identify Oswald and all be wrong?!

And I notice that absolutely true to form neither yourself, George and Fishy have answered any of the points that I have made. It’s just ask, ask, ask, with you lot, but you’re utterly clueless when you’re requested to provide answers. Especially meaningful ones.

[Joshua Rogan]

Because it was a very light grey and tan is a very light brown. I’m not colour blind but I occasionally have slight difficulty differentiating between tones…..Ive mistaken grey for green, purple for brown and I, in part at least, make my living from drawing portraits (often in colour.)

How would you describe the colour of Oswald's hair?