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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again we are back to a question with no answers. A question that never gets answered. A question that conjures up nothing but silence.

Why did our powerful plotter set up a plan which required - a gun ordered in such a way as to incriminate Oswald (that had been seen at Ruth Paine’s), the planting of fingerprints on the weapon after the crime, ensuring that Oswald kept schtum in front of the Poluce and in front of the TV cameras, to control and navigate Oswald through the Tippit incident, to persuade his wife and brother that he was guilty, to get his wife to lie about the Walker and Nixon incidents, the setting up of a corrupt autopsy to mislead the public, to gather in every photograph or piece of film footage taken in Dealey Plaza and then to control a committee selected by the President.

Rather than simply having a shooter making the easy shot from the Knoll, killing Kennedy efficiently and then disappearing into total anonymity.

There cannot have been, in the history of the world, a group of plotters so idiotic, so lacking in reason and sense, so lacking in judgment. This point PROVES that there was no conspiracy. For some group or groups to have taken the first option over the second couldn’t possibly have happened.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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..

Actually, I suppose it could be pointed out that there was a trial - albeit for US television purposes. Lawyers conducted the prosecution and defence, legal procedures were followed, everything was conducted as if it were a real trial, and although it can be argued that it wasn't a totally genuine trial, Oswald was found guity with a unanimous verdict.

[A P Tomlinson]

IIRC, there were about 12 witnesses that either saw Oswald kill Officer Tippett or saw him run from the scene. So it can hardly be argued that he didn't kill Tippett. Surely someone wouldn't kill a policeman unless he was trying to escape from having committed a serious crime. In fact, Oswald is unlikely to have even left the SBD if he was innocent.

There's a book called "Into The Nightmare" by Joe MacBride. For the longest time I'd thought the same; "Well, maybe he didn't kill Kennedy, but he certainly killed Tippit... right?"
Then I read that book... "Oh... then maybe not!"
The book is about Joe's life as an assassination researcher as much as it is a book about the murder of Tippit, and its a bloody good read. IF you can get hold of a copy...

There's also a new series of articles by a guy called John Washburn on Jim DiEugenio's "Kennedy's and King" website on the Tippit shooting.
It's not the open and shut case most people think, and a lot of (fairly basic) research never got done at the time, and as with the entire case has only come to light in more recent years.
Jim's a friend of mine and wrote the Oliver Stone documentary series "Destiny Betrayed" and the cut down version "JFK Revisted" and while he is VERY invested in the "Conspiracy" element of the case there are few people who know as much about it as he does.
It messes with my brain how I can ask him a question about some obscure piece of JFK trivia, and he won't just answer it with his opinion... he gets back to me like twenty minutes later with six references including bloody chapter/page numbers and quotes...
It's a level of recall I just can't relate to.

[Fiver]

"OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room." -James Hosty

"OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize." - FBI agent James Bookhout

Bookhout's statement is supported by the notes of Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley and Captian Fritz of the Dallas Police.

James Jarman testified he was in the domino room/lunch room, but that Oswald was not.

Harold Norman testified he was in the domino room/lunch room, but that Oswald was not.

Jack Edwin Dougherty testified he was in the domino room/lunch room between 12 and 12:30 and that the last time he had seen Oswald was around 11am on the 6th floor.

Danny G. Arce testified that he had lunch with Dougherty in the domino room/lunch room and that the last time he had seen Oswald was before that, with Oswald on the 5th or 6th floor.

That leaves a couple possibilities.
* Oswald was telling the truth, but forgot there were two more people in the domino room that could give him alibis.
* Jarman, Norman, Dougherty, and Acre were all lying.

Neither option gives Oswald an alibi for the shooting. Jarman and Norman had enough time to get to the 5th floor before the assassination, so clearly Oswald had enough time to get to the 6th floor before the assassination.