Originally posted by Fiver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year
Collapse
X
-
None of Bonnie Ray Williams, Junior Jarman or Hank Norman can credibly have had anything to do with the murder of JFK. That is the consensus across the JFK broad band of opinion I am sure. But their testimony is interesting.
When I say 'testimony' we have to decide what exactly that means. All three men were questioned by DP on the day, or the day following the assassination and made signed statements. Some, or perhaps all, were subsequently questioned by FBI agents in the days following and made more detailed statements. Thereafter followed pre-cognitions by the Warren Commission (part of that involved the men adopting their positions on camera at the time of the assassination) and of course their WC oral testimony. There are no discrepancies in these accounts which amount to anything suspicious in my opinion, at least not on their part. They were three potentially vulnerable men whom fate had placed uncomfortably close to a seismic political event.
When Bonnie Ray Williams made his initial statement (to the DP) on the afternoon of the assassination he did not mention ever having been on the 6th floor after 12 noon. However his statement taken on the afternoon of 22nd November does mention seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in custody which may have flavoured if not his initial statement- which is quite bald- his later ones. By the time Williams reached the WC he was a more than helpful witness. He recalled Oswald being a dour, uncommunicative fellow worker which was helpful to the embittered lone gunman theory. He recalled Oswald laughing derisively in the domino room after reading a political article, which helped support the idea of Oswald being a malcontent. Since Williams only admitted to reading sports pages (which he noted Oswald, as an oddball presumably, did not) it is not clear why Williams would have known what article Oswald was reading in the newspaper. Williams also recalled Oswald had a habit of messing around near cartons (which contained books) to indicate Oswald was a slovenly worker, albeit nobody else at the TSBD ever noted this characteristic. He also, very helpfully, recalled Oswald being posted missing during a roll call following the assassination.
Williams was in a very unenviable position. He had to acknowledge he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the sight of a political assassination. He had left a cola bottle and some chicken bones to that effect, suspiciously close to the sniper's nest. To the FBI agents he claimed he had left the 6th floor at around 12.05, evidence presented to him at the Warren Commission. Williams now claimed he had no memory of giving this timing to the FBI. Why?
The problem was that his alibi now largely rested on the two fellow workers who watched the motorcade with him, and their timings were distinctly unhelpful. Jarman and Norman stated that they left the street outside to gain a better viewing position and were LATER joined by Williams on the 5th floor. Williams himself corroborated this sequence of events. But according to Jarman at the WC, he and Norman caught the lift to the 5th floor between 12.25 and 12.28. Which, even allowing for a slightly earlier time, meant that Williams must have been munching his lunch very close in both time and place to an assassin possibly assembling a rifle and definitely preparing to shoot the POTUS. Yet he saw and heard nothing.
The racist tinge to the WC questioning is unmistakable from our vantage point in 2025. The three black employees are asked if they have ever been in trouble with the law but I have not come across that question being directed at white employees. Of course the questioners, who included future President Ford, would have known that a negative reply was forthcoming otherwise they would not have posed the question to helpful witnesses in the first place. Conspiracy theorists may see an implicit threat lying below the question.
Comment
-
That we can’t assume that Frazer and his sister imagined or lied about the package is proven by the fact that Oswald himself never denied it. In fact the opposite was the case. He accepted that he had been carrying the long package to work but he came up with the curtain rods excuse. Is there anyone alive that believes that the curtain rods ever existed? Surely not. Therefore Oswald carried a long package to work which could have been nothing else but the rifle. As far as I’m concerned this is proven beyond any doubt.
Ok, so we know that he took his rifle to work but this act, in itself, doesn’t prove that he fired it of course (other evidence does that job convincingly). So is it believable that he took it and placed it on the 6th floor for someone else to fire it? No one should be surprised when I say that I find this totally unbelievable but let’s go with it for the sake of covering all angles. Let’s say that someone said “Look Lee, I’m going to assassinate the President but I don’t have a rifle. Can I borrow yours?” To which the obliging Oswald says “no problem.” Even if we assume that as a precaution he sensibly wiped any of his prints off (not expecting any to be ‘planted’ later on - why would he?) he would still have had to have forgotten that he’d ordered the gun, under the name Hidell, which was the name on the library card found in his wallet. Could Oswald have handed over his gun without realising his blunder? That he was solidly linked to the rifle? Again I have to say that it would be at the extreme end of unlikeliness. So it can’t be remotely likely that he would have given his gun to someone. Trying to cover all ‘angles’ I’ll ask - could he have taken it to work believing that he was going to sell it to someone? No, because instead of lying to the police about not owning a gun he could have just told them why he’d brought his gun to work. So we have to drop that suggestion too. So what’s left? Can anyone suggest anything? I can’t.
Ok, so let’s forget for a second all of the above and assume that we have an unknown Mr X on the 6th floor with Oswald’s rifle. How he got there - we don’t know. How he could have avoided suspicion or remained unseen - we don’t know. Why would he build a sniper’s nest? The nest could only have been built so that the shooter could get off his shots unseen by anyone else who might have been on the 6th floor. So more questions - how could a stranger have been on that floor if there were workers there to notice a stranger in the first place? And if the nest had just allowed him to get off his shots before anyone might have attempted to stop him then yes, Kennedy would still have been dead, but the plan to frame Oswald’s would have been over and the police would then have had the mystery of tracing the gun to Oswald’s box - why did Mr X get his gun from a defector who worked in that building? To frame Oswald the ‘real’ killer would have had to have gotten away unseen and anonymously . And if Oswald wasn’t on the 6th floor then he would have known none of what had occurred on the 6th floor so he wouldn’t have still fled the scene, picked up his gun etc and killed Tippit. The small question of why no strangers were seen is also one that has gone unanswered over the years. None of this makes sense.
The snipers nest was important to Oswald for the same reason. He could have still got the shots off even if some of his co-workers had shown up. There is a difference though. Oswald’s wedding ring and the $175. He clearly expected not to return.
Again - guiltier than OJ.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
Again, when you can't refute me, you attempt an insult.
The CIA was taking pictures of everyone going into and out of the Soviet Embassy. The picture is not Oswald.
Which is more credible:
* Some bureaucrat sent the wrong photo.
* A Conspiracy of hundreds that was able to provide an Oswald look-alike for the JFK and Tippit shootings didn't send him to Mexico.
I am not attempting to insult you.
I asked you a question.
Which is more credible:
The CIA made a mistake
Fiver makes a mistake
I'm gonna assume that you made the mistake since you were not in the room when decisions were made. The CIA knows more about Oswald amd Mexico City than you or I. Fiver, you are guessing when you say the WC got the picture is a human error.
The CIA was taking pictures of everyone going into and out of the Soviet embassy. I have never seen a picture of Oswald at the Embassy. The Cuban Embassy has a picture of a blonde "Oswald" That suggests to some that Oswald was never there. The CIA knows why they sent this photo. They cropped it. They sent it.
When did the CIA realized this was not Oswald?
Why didn't the Warren Commission ask for another photo of Oswald outside the Embassy? Where is the picture that is not a mistake?
Espionage is a conspiracy.
You keep dismissing facts because you imply a vast conspiracy is necessary. .Politicians conspire and lie. Look at the current shaved monkey in the White House. Espionage is a conspiracy. Consider the CIA Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation that originated within the US Department of Defense of the United States government in 1962. you make read about it on Wikipedia. Spy organizations have thousands of disconnected operations.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
thanks fiver
so which shot was it according to the wc/ official account?
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Or dwarves.
Hey, beats some of the OTHER looney conspiracies that I've heard- including one that Aristotle Onassis was the mastermind. Or one that Jackie was the intended target but someone bumped the shooter's gun. (Or was that the Time Traveler "Theory"??)Last edited by C. F. Leon; Today, 03:55 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post
So Herlock, you're saying that either the Time Bandits or Dr. Loveless are involved?
Hey, beats some of the OTHER looney conspiracies that I've heard- including one that Aristotle Onassis was the mastermind. Or one that Jackie was the intended target but someone bumped the shooter's gun. (Or was that the Time Traveler "Theory"??)"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
Sso you are accusing Connally of lying?
Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.
This is getting tiresome Fiver , you obviously arent procession the information properly . Connally was sure about a separate bullet that struck him , Tague was injured from a bullet fragment , JFK was struck by a bullet that entered his back, exited his throat , and another bullet that blew his head off . 4 shots ,three that came from the rear via TSBD , one from the front . Whatever way you try and spin your way out of it it dont add up . I Will get to the question asked by Abby as to which shot it was that the bullet fragment hit Tague shortly .'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
Governor Connally and James Tague both believed there were only three shots.'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
Mr. TAGUE. Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window.
We said maybe this is where they came from. And the deputy sheriff ran back to the policeman. I may not be quite accurate, but I believe at the time there was a whole swarm of motorcycle policemen coming back to the area under the underpass going the wrong way here on Elm.
Excuse me Mr Tague, what do you mean maybe ????? Did you see a shooter fire a rifle out of the sixth story window or not ?
Let me know when you have a ''yes'' from his official statement .'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
The WC decided there wasn't enough evidence to determine whether Tague was hit because of the missed shot ricocheting or because of a fragment from the head shot. In either case, the curb was struck by a bullet or bullet fragment and Tague was struck by a chipped bit of concrete.'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fiver View Post
He also believes Connally was wrong when he said the shot to JFK's head came from "the direction of the School Book Depository" and wrong when Connally believed Oswald was the only assassin.Last edited by FISHY1118; Today, 09:54 AM.'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
But the risk would have been for a bullet to have passed through and been discovered whole. Leaving 4 bullets, 3 cartridges. You surely can’t be suggesting that a shooter on the Grassy Know was relying entirely on his bullet disintegrating so badly that it wouldn’t be identified as a separate bullet? He couldn’t possibly have been sure of that in advance so he would have been totally aware of the possibility of the bullet being found either whole or mostly whole. That would have left more bullets than cartridges.'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
It’s not an excuse Fishy. I’m sure that you wouldn’t deny that witnesses can be mistaken; even under far, far less difficult circumstances? It’s difficult to give much credence to any other person saying two separate shots Fishy. This occurred in a heartbeat. No one could be certain of accurate recall when they hadn’t felt the bullet.
Whilst I agree that 4 shots would have meant a second gunman we can’t allow the fact that some believe in a second gunman to allow them to assume that Connolly was correct.
And as Fiver has said, why do you assume that he was correct about a second shot when he also said that there were just three shots all coming from the rear. Isn’t that a case of picking the parts that are true to suit a conclusion?
Numerous reconstructions have been done using state of the art technology which all prove that one bullet passed through both men. It lines up perfectly. Why does this get rejected? Why is this technology considered redundant in this case and yet it never is in other fields? Doesn’t that smack of selectivity a little?
The big problem in this case is that evidence isn’t just questioned it’s dismissed out of hand when it doesn’t fit. It’s a general problem imo. We get stock denials, like, an inconvenient photograph - forged, an inconvenient x-Ray - faked, an inconvenient document - forged. Any debate on any crime would be simple (but pointless) if those responses were regularly used - as they are in this case.
Why do you assume the opposite to be correct ? which Connally statement is tru and which is a mistake .Think back to what he said and the way in which he said it regarding the separate bullet. Were you not adament about a certain John Richardson and what he claimed about how he couldnt have missed Annie Chapmans body had she been lying there ? . Dont forget also, Richardson had no other corrobarating support as Connally did with his wife and two police officers who were right there with him at the time 'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman
Comment
Comment