JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

There is no comparison Fishy. John Richardson said that he hadn’t seen a terribly mutilated corpse that would have been no more than a foot from his left boot. He couldn’t possibly have missed it and he hadn’t missed it. This is corroborated by Cadosch because he heard someone in that yard 40 minutes or so later and no one could have been in that yard and been unaware of the presence of a corpse.

What you are asking is that Connally, under tremendously stressful conditions, where he himself had been shot, was hyper-aware of the exact moment that Kennedy was struck; a man who was sitting behind him. We all know how we have to be cautious when assessing witness testimony and one thing that we have to be even more cautious about are the circumstances involved. If a man stands in a doorway watching two men fighting 20 feet away in broad daylight for a full minute then we would have a very reasonable level of confidence in his testimony (but even then we would need caution) What you are suggesting is total confidence in the judgment of a man who had just been shot in broad daylight and who, in retrospect, was trying to judge the exact point at which another man was shot; a man that he couldn’t see because he was behind him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see your point, however given the fact that the bullet that exploded into jfk head did only leave tiny fragments [ as per the W.C report] shows its intended dimise was just that .

It couldn’t have been its ‘intended’ demise. The gunman couldn’t have fired a rifle in a certain way that ensured that the bullet disintegrated. And even if a bullet disintegrates it’s sometimes still possible to accurately count the number of bullets as a whole. So again our conspirators, taking part in the most momentous murder imaginable were relying on luck for success. We surely can’t believe this to have been the case?

[FISHY1118]

There is no comparison Fishy. John Richardson said that he hadn’t seen a terribly mutilated corpse that would have been no more than a foot from his left boot. He couldn’t possibly have missed it and he hadn’t missed it. This is corroborated by Cadosch because he heard someone in that yard 40 minutes or so later and no one could have been in that yard and been unaware of the presence of a corpse.

What you are asking is that Connally, under tremendously stressful conditions, where he himself had been shot, was hyper-aware of the exact moment that Kennedy was struck; a man who was sitting behind him. We all know how we have to be cautious when assessing witness testimony and one thing that we have to be even more cautious about are the circumstances involved. If a man stands in a doorway watching two men fighting 20 feet away in broad daylight for a full minute then we would have a very reasonable level of confidence in his testimony (but even then we would need caution) What you are suggesting is total confidence in the judgment of a man who had just been shot in broad daylight and who, in retrospect, was trying to judge the exact point at which another man was shot; a man that he couldn’t see because he was behind him.

Well, as always we disagree, so be it. I will let the evidence determine my post from here on in. Reasoning Seems a futile exercise. At the very least you should acknowledge the evidence as we know it would certainly have seen Oswald acquitted of jfks murder. No jury on earth would convict Oswald after the Connally and Tague opinions , not to mention the rest of the inconsistencies and contradictions shown here over the coming up to nearly 3000 post on the subject..

But I won't hold by breath , and in the spirit of healthy debate bare no grudge.

[FISHY1118]

It couldn’t have been its ‘intended’ demise. The gunman couldn’t have fired a rifle in a certain way that ensured that the bullet disintegrated. And even if a bullet disintegrates it’s sometimes still possible to accurately count the number of bullets as a whole. So again our conspirators, taking part in the most momentous murder imaginable were relying on luck for success. We surely can’t believe this to have been the case?

Sometimes ,but in this case it wasn't and I believe none of the tiny fragments were ever matched to the rifle fired from the TSBD, so in this case there could and was imo a totaly different rifle and bullet .

The Nature of President Kennedy’s Head Injuries


The majority of the damage to the head appears to have been caused by a soft–nosed bullet, a type designed to break apart on impact, while all the non–fatal wounds were caused by metal–jacketed bullets, which were designed to remain intact. The shells found on the sixth floor of the TSBD were all from the same batch, and must have contained the same type of bullet. The implication is that either the soft–nosed bullet was fired from elsewhere, or it was fired from the sixth floor by a second gunman.






The fact remains, if Connally is correct and as yet every attempt to suggest he wasn't is to say the least .....very unconvincing. There has to be a 4th shot and second gunman .

[Abby Normal]

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.

got it. thanks fiver

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, as always we disagree, so be it. I will let the evidence determine my post from here on in. Reasoning Seems a futile exercise. At the very least you should acknowledge the evidence as we know it would certainly have seen Oswald acquitted of jfks murder. No jury on earth would convict Oswald after the Connally and Tague opinions , not to mention the rest of the inconsistencies and contradictions shown here over the coming up to nearly 3000 post on the subject..

But I won't hold by breath , and in the spirit of healthy debate bare no grudge.

There’s no need to hold your breath Fishy because there’s not a jury in the history of the world that would have dismissed Oswald’s rifle with Oswald’s prints on them after Oswald was witnessed by two people carrying a long package to work and that rifle (which was kept at Ruth Paine’s but was no longer there) was found on the floor where Oswald was working, in favour of the split second judgment of a man that had just been shot. Any jury would have taken all of 5 minutes to have come up with a guilty verdict (not to mention the fact that he’d shot Tippit - with his own gun) That’s ‘reasoning’ Fishy. You have simply latched on to one piece of evidence and sought to eliminate numerous other pieces of rock solid real evidence in its favour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sometimes ,but in this case it wasn't and I believe none of the tiny fragments were ever matched to the rifle fired from the TSBD, so in this case there could and was imo a totaly different rifle and bullet .

The Nature of President Kennedy’s Head Injuries


The majority of the damage to the head appears to have been caused by a soft–nosed bullet, a type designed to break apart on impact, while all the non–fatal wounds were caused by metal–jacketed bullets, which were designed to remain intact. The shells found on the sixth floor of the TSBD were all from the same batch, and must have contained the same type of bullet. The implication is that either the soft–nosed bullet was fired from elsewhere, or it was fired from the sixth floor by a second gunman.






The fact remains, if Connally is correct and as yet every attempt to suggest he wasn't is to say the least .....very unconvincing. There has to be a 4th shot and second gunman .

And the emboldened and underlined part is the significant one. Any shooter on the Knoll wouldn’t have known the state of the bullet after passing through Kennedy’s head. He could have had no level of confidence therefore you are stating that the plotters were relying entirely on a piece of good fortune; on the bullet breaking up into so many pieces that they wouldn’t have been able to accurately count the bullets fired.

So again we find ourselves needing to believe that a group of plotters who had the wherewithal to plant evidence, fake photographs and x-rays, to set up a corrupt autopsy followed by an equally corrupt commission and yet….they were idiots relying on luck. Can you really believe that?