JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would you think that the assassins needed to play parts in a conspiracy play. They were there only to ensure the death of Kennedy. The conspiracy arose when Johnson needed to convince the public of a lone assassin rather than a plot by a foreign government. The single bullet theory was contrived by a lawyer to address that aim, and carefully avoided medical and ballistic imperatives.

Have you heard of the Kansas City shuffle - when everybody looks right, you go left. Bullets from the rear to draw attention from the actual assassin at the front left. Should we rely on the "what if" and "why would" opinions of lawyers, or the medical and forensic ballistic proofs of someone like the late Sherry Fiester? Hmmm...let me think. It's all there in the links I posted.

I think that I am starting to agree with Fishy - it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong

The single bullet was a fact proven by evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there’s one thing that can always be relied upon it’s that in any discussion about the assassination of Kennedy by the 100% guilty double-murderer Oswald that those proposing these childish conspiracies never…and I do mean never…want to answer the awkward questions which show that the very idea of a conspiracy to be preposterous. They are too intent on being influenced by people like Garrison, Stone, DiEugenio, Lane, Stone, Groden etc to take a step back. It’s always a case of quibbling over bullets and guns and suchlike. Every single point they make has been countered by experts but all that they have as a response is the standard “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” So that one is used to ‘dismiss’ evidence and expert opinion that they don’t like and stuff like photographs, x-rays, documents etc are dismissed by cries of ‘fake’ and ‘forgery.’ Easy isn’t it? But there are some questions that they can’t dismiss with the above…leaving the one remaining tactic…a rather embarrassed silence. So…I don’t suppose for a second I’ll get answers, let alone meaningful ones…but I live in hope.

1. As we know that Oswald didn’t deny carrying a large package to work, indeed he came up with his ridiculous lie about curtain rods, then we know that he could only have been carrying his rifle. So why did this ‘innocent’ man take a rifle to work?

2. Why did the ‘innocent’ Lee leave his wedding ring and $175 (pretty much every cent that he owned) if he was just heading off to a normal day at work?

3. Why would a group of powerful plotters have dropped 3 cartridges on the 6th floor when they would have known about a second gunmen’s which could have left them with more bullets that cartridges?

4. Why would a group of powerful conspirators have placed a second gunman at a spot directly in front of a carpark used by the Dallas Police and just behind any number of observes (many of whom had still and movie cameras)?

5. Why would a group of powerful plotters have been so unutterably stupid as to setting up a fake autopsy when the body had already been seen by numerous people at Parkland?

6. Why would a group of powerful plotters have used such a massively complex plot requiring numerous highly difficult actions post murder when a child could have conceived of a much simpler, far more certain of success assassination plan which would have required zero post-assassination actions? The simpler the plan the less chance of error.

7. Why would our powerful plotters have involved so many people that it’s impossible to count them, when everyone knows that it’s always a case of ‘the fewest people possible in-the-know.’

The fewer the people the less the chance of someone spilling the beans.

8. Why couldn’t these powerful plotters have come up with a car to get Oswald away from Dealey Plaza? What kind of dimwit sets a man up, drops him right in the s**t, then leaves him to roam around, get arrested, talk to the police, make a TV appearance etc. It’s a joke.

9. Why would Earl Warren, who worshipped the ground that Kennedy walked on, have presided over a corrupt commission? Why would he and the other Kennedy admirers (counsels, staff etc) have done so? Were not one of them decent, patriotic men? Those men that all saw military service. It’s very easy and very ‘trendy’ to sit on a forum and accuse people of being traitors to their country because the ‘all authority and all institutions are evil’ attitude is the one that’s on trend these days but to some people, especially in years passed, felt a strong duty to their country. This was less than 20 years after the end of WW2 and during the Cold War.

10. And talking of the Cold War. When the biggest fear of every politician and citizen was the threat of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union what kind of lane brain plotters would pick as their dupe a traitor? A man who had defected and offered to give away military secrets.

There was no big conspiracy. The very notion is utterly preposterous. Childish. The result of people pursuing an obsessive hobby over the years to the detriment of truth and the American people. It’s absolutely fashionable to trash the reputation of decent, patriotic men these days. I find it sad and pathetic that people seek to profit from books, documentaries and personal appearances on the strength of it.. It’s the infantilisation of the USA. Oswald alone. 100%.

[GBinOz]

The single bullet was a fact proven by evidence.

No, it is not. First, the entry of the bullet is shifted from 5 1/2 inches below the shoulder line up the the base of the neck. Then the entry wound in the throat is converted to an exit wound. The the men's locations in the car are manipulated into positions to allow a single bullet. However, the film evidence shows that the men were never actually in those positions.

[GBinOz]

If there’s one thing that can always be relied upon it’s that in any discussion about the assassination of Kennedy by the 100% guilty double-murderer Oswald that those proposing these childish conspiracies never…and I do mean never…want to answer the awkward questions which show that the very idea of a conspiracy to be preposterous. They are too intent on being influenced by people like Garrison, Stone, DiEugenio, Lane, Stone, Groden etc to take a step back. It’s always a case of quibbling over bullets and guns and suchlike. Every single point they make has been countered by experts but all that they have as a response is the standard “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” So that one is used to ‘dismiss’ evidence and expert opinion that they don’t like and stuff like photographs, x-rays, documents etc are dismissed by cries of ‘fake’ and ‘forgery.’ Easy isn’t it? But there are some questions that they can’t dismiss with the above…leaving the one remaining tactic…a rather embarrassed silence. So…I don’t suppose for a second I’ll get answers, let alone meaningful ones…but I live in hope.
Two Stones, but no mention of Burkley or Sherry Fiester?

1. As we know that Oswald didn’t deny carrying a large package to work, indeed he came up with his ridiculous lie about curtain rods, then we know that he could only have been carrying his rifle. So why did this ‘innocent’ man take a rifle to work?
The three witnesses said he didn't.

2. Why did the ‘innocent’ Lee leave his wedding ring and $175 (pretty much every cent that he owned) if he was just heading off to a normal day at work?
A dangerous day as a CIA asset.

3. Why would a group of powerful plotters have dropped 3 cartridges on the 6th floor when they would have known about a second gunmen’s which could have left them with more bullets that cartridges?

4. Why would a group of powerful conspirators have placed a second gunman at a spot directly in front of a carpark used by the Dallas Police and just behind any number of observes (many of whom had still and movie cameras)?
Decoy - where are all these photos and films from people who were looking the other way at the President?

5. Why would a group of powerful plotters have been so unutterably stupid as to setting up a fake autopsy when the body had already been seen by numerous people at Parkland?
So that "unutterably stupid" people would disbelieve the doctors at Parkland who said the head shot was from the front.

6. Why would a group of powerful plotters have used such a massively complex plot requiring numerous highly difficult actions post murder when a child could have conceived of a much simpler, far more certain of success assassination plan which would have required zero post-assassination actions? The simpler the plan the less chance of error.
Any competent assassination attempt uses a crossfire from different positions to ensure the job gets done. The distorted explanations are left to those that come after with an agenda.

7. Why would our powerful plotters have involved so many people that it’s impossible to count them, when everyone knows that it’s always a case of ‘the fewest people possible in-the-know.’

The fewer the people the less the chance of someone spilling the beans.
See 6. The fewer the people, the less the chance of achieving the objective.

8. Why couldn’t these powerful plotters have come up with a car to get Oswald away from Dealey Plaza? What kind of dimwit sets a man up, drops him right in the s**t, then leaves him to roam around, get arrested, talk to the police, make a TV appearance etc. It’s a joke.
Oswald isn't laughing.

9. Why would Earl Warren, who worshipped the ground that Kennedy walked on, have presided over a corrupt commission? Why would he and the other Kennedy admirers (counsels, staff etc) have done so? Were not one of them decent, patriotic men? Those men that all saw military service. It’s very easy and very ‘trendy’ to sit on a forum and accuse people of being traitors to their country because the ‘all authority and all institutions are evil’ attitude is the one that’s on trend these days but to some people, especially in years passed, felt a strong duty to their country. This was less than 20 years after the end of WW2 and during the Cold War.
Orders from higher authority. The dissenting opinions were suppressed.

10. And talking of the Cold War. When the biggest fear of every politician and citizen was the threat of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union what kind of lane brain plotters would pick as their dupe a traitor? A man who had defected and offered to give away military secrets.
No he wasn't, and didn't. Both the Americans and the Russians knew he was a CIA asset, as were many others in that program.

There was no big conspiracy. The very notion is utterly preposterous. Childish. The result of people pursuing an obsessive hobby over the years to the detriment of truth and the American people. It’s absolutely fashionable to trash the reputation of decent, patriotic men these days. I find it sad and pathetic that people seek to profit from books, documentaries and personal appearances on the strength of it.. It’s the infantilisation of the USA. Oswald alone. 100%.

The terrible "WHY WOULDs" accumulate.. No evidence, just manipulative speculation accompanied by resort to protestations of childish, sad and pathetic. Sherry Fiester's work is definitive to those who actually choose to examine her conclusions, and only those that rely on the obfuscations of lawyers will fail to appreciate that fact.

[Fiver]

At this ''Mock Trial ''was all the evidence of that we have shown here over 3000 post offered up , ? Of course not, so lets compare apples with cucumbers shall we .

So far, the Conspiracists in this thread have not provided evidence, they have provided assumptions, accusations, and speculation.

[Fiver]

Yes you can, but you cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt or any certainty that the head shot came from the TSBD due to Connallys and James Tague , his wife and two Police officers evidence as has been shown . Btw was this evidence given at your mock trial ?

The Connallys and James Tague believed that there were three shots, all of which came for the Book Depository. I have quoted then directly, yet you continue to pretend they support there being a fourth bullet. The Zapruder and Muchmore films show that the fatal headshot came from behind. The xrays of JFK's skull show that the fatal headshot came from behind. Bullet fragments taken from JFK's head matched a bullet fragment found in front of him, inside the limo. and they matched Oswald's gun.

[Fiver]

Despite the Warren Commission desperately trying to identify these two weapons as being the same, and flat out stating that they were, “...a photograph taken in the yard of Oswald’s apartment showed him holding this rifle.” (referring to the MC found in the TSBD) their own FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt (called upon to make that very comparison) refused to say that was the case - stating that he could not reach that conclusion. He wouldn't say categorically that they were different either, but...burden of proof, and so on...

Here is Shaneyfelt's testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.
Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.

[Fiver]

13 Years after the Assassination!!!!!!! yer right . nice try.

If the bullets were faked, they were faked so well that they fooled improved testing made 13 years later.

In 1976, HSCA neutron activation tests showed CE 843 (from JFK's brain) and CE 567 (found on the front floorboard) were parts of the same bullet. CE 567 is the nose portion of a damaged 6.5-millimeter caliber full metal-jacketed, lead core bullet.

[Fiver]

Only three witnesses had seen Oswald prior to and during his arrival at work on 22 November 1963. All three testified that he had not carried a rifle. Buell Wesley Frazier, who had driven Oswald to work, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, at whose house Oswald had met Frazier that morning, both claimed that Oswald had been carrying a paper bag, but that the bag was much too short to have held the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

If Oswald was framed, Frazier and Buell had to be part of the frameup. Again, you are claiming a grossly incompetent Conspiracy which can't even get their perjured witnesses to follow the script.

Jack Dougherty, a colleague of Oswald’s who saw him enter the TSBD, was adamant that he did not see anything in Oswald’s hands.

Dougherty said he didn't see anything, but he was not adamant.

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

[Fiver]

Dallas police officers claimed to have discovered on the sixth floor a paper bag that was long enough to have contained the rifle, but the bag turned out to have had no association with either Oswald or the rifle:

That is incorrect. Oswald's fingerprint and palm print were found on the bag in a position matching the way Frazier and Randle testified Oswald was carrying the bag. Fibers were found on the bag consistent with, but not exclusive to the blanket that Oswald had kept his rifle in.

[Fiver]

The bag did not show creases or oil stains consistent with it having held the disassembled rifle.

A properly maintained rifle would not have left oil stains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

[Patrick Differ]

When RFK was asked about the Warren Commission report he said it was a work of fiction. When asked who killed his brother he said he thought it was the MOB and specifically Johnny Roselli and Carlos Marcello. RFK deported Marcello to the jungles of Guatemala. He barely survived and made his way back to the USA. At the time the CIA under Dulles had employed the MOB in Assassinations of World Leaders. Castro an obvious target but there were many others. When JFK learned this he was outraged and made the famous comment that " he was going to break them into 1000 pieces".

The CIA and the MOB had it out for the Kennedy Brothers. This is not disputed. When Carlos Marcello was in prison ( by then Roselli was found dismembered in a 55 gallon drum and Trafficante was assassinated) he said to an informant in the prison that " Oswald was one of theirs". Meaning Oswald was a CIA operative. This would also explain his involvement with Ferry and Fair Play for Cuba front in New Orleans.

This is all old news and easily verified. My guess at this point is that the withholding of documents might explain Oswald once and for all and his association with the CIA and MOB.

He had ties to the MOB through his Uncle who was a bookie for the Chicago outfit where Oswald would work as a runner.

Oswald the lone nut or Oswald the shooter or Oswald the Patsy? Hopefully this is put to bed

[Herlock Sholmes]

If there’s one thing that can always be relied upon it’s that in any discussion about the assassination of Kennedy by the 100% guilty double-murderer Oswald that those proposing these childish conspiracies never…and I do mean never…want to answer the awkward questions which show that the very idea of a conspiracy to be preposterous. They are too intent on being influenced by people like Garrison, Stone, DiEugenio, Lane, Stone, Groden etc to take a step back. It’s always a case of quibbling over bullets and guns and suchlike. Every single point they make has been countered by experts but all that they have as a response is the standard “well they would say that wouldn’t they.” So that one is used to ‘dismiss’ evidence and expert opinion that they don’t like and stuff like photographs, x-rays, documents etc are dismissed by cries of ‘fake’ and ‘forgery.’ Easy isn’t it? But there are some questions that they can’t dismiss with the above…leaving the one remaining tactic…a rather embarrassed silence. So…I don’t suppose for a second I’ll get answers, let alone meaningful ones…but I live in hope.

Two Stones, but no mention of Burkley or Sherry Fiester?

1. As we know that Oswald didn’t deny carrying a large package to work, indeed he came up with his ridiculous lie about curtain rods, then we know that he could only have been carrying his rifle. So why did this ‘innocent’ man take a rifle to work?

The three witnesses said he didn't.

Then why did Oswald himself feel the need to invent the curtain rods lie? Why didn’t he simply say “I wasn’t carrying a parcel; they must have been mistaken”? No, he had brought a large package to work and yes he made up a stupid lie on the spot to defend himself. You haven’t confronted this very obvious point.


2. Why did the ‘innocent’ Lee leave his wedding ring and $175 (pretty much every cent that he owned) if he was just heading off to a normal day at work?

A dangerous day as a CIA asset.

Which might be true if he was a CIA asset but he wasn’t. Why do you assume a complex answer whilst ignoring the obvious? His gun was missing from its hiding place, he carried a large parcel, no curtain rods were ever found, he pretended that he didn’t know Kennedy was coming. Clearly he was intending to shoot Kennedy.


3. Why would a group of powerful plotters have dropped 3 cartridges on the 6th floor when they would have known about a second gunmen’s which could have left them with more bullets that cartridges?

No answer to that one I notice. Because there is no answer. No conspirators could possibly have been so stupid.


4. Why would a group of powerful conspirators have placed a second gunman at a spot directly in front of a carpark used by the Dallas Police and just behind any number of observes (many of whom had still and movie cameras)?

Decoy - where are all these photos and films from people who were looking the other way at the President?

I don’t understand your point. Anyone on that side of the Knoll could have turned around and seen a gunman had he existed. Those on the other side of the road would have been facing the President and therefore the imaginary gunman.


5. Why would a group of powerful plotters have been so unutterably stupid as to setting up a fake autopsy when the body had already been seen by numerous people at Parkland?

So that "unutterably stupid" people would disbelieve the doctors at Parkland who said the head shot was from the front.

Ah, I’ll take note that I used that phrase to describe our unknown plotters, you used it to describe myself and others. The point of course, is why would our conspirators (if they had existed) have allowed this insane situation to have arisen in the first place. As I’ve described it before, it’s like a bank robber putting on a mask after he’s robbed the bank. How can this be believed?


6. Why would a group of powerful plotters have used such a massively complex plot requiring numerous highly difficult actions post murder when a child could have conceived of a much simpler, far more certain of success assassination plan which would have required zero post-assassination actions? The simpler the plan the less chance of error.

Any competent assassination attempt uses a crossfire from different positions to ensure the job gets done. The distorted explanations are left to those that come after with an agenda.

Just how many assassinations can you name where this crossfire was used? Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield - no, Bobby Kennedy - no, Gandhi - no, Martin Luther King - no, Malcolm X - no, John Lennon - no, Olaf Palme - no. Actually George I can’t even find one.

A shot from such a short distance as the picket fence was, according to the experts that I’ve read about online, an unmissable shot to a decent gunman. According to you, our man fired once and blew Kennedy’s brains out. Absolutely no need for a 6th floor gunman.


7. Why would our powerful plotters have involved so many people that it’s impossible to count them, when everyone knows that it’s always a case of ‘the fewest people possible in-the-know.’

See 6. The fewer the people, the less the chance of achieving the objective.

The fewer the people the less the chance of someone spilling the beans. One person behind the fence and one getaway driver. Job done, killer gets away. Two people. Versus your 1000.


8. Why couldn’t these powerful plotters have come up with a car to get Oswald away from Dealey Plaza? What kind of dimwit sets a man up, drops him right in the s**t, then leaves him to roam around, get arrested, talk to the police, make a TV appearance etc. It’s a joke.

Oswald isn't laughing.

No answer…ok.


9. Why would Earl Warren, who worshipped the ground that Kennedy walked on, have presided over a corrupt commission? Why would he and the other Kennedy admirers (counsels, staff etc) have done so? Were not one of them decent, patriotic men? Those men that all saw military service. It’s very easy and very ‘trendy’ to sit on a forum and accuse people of being traitors to their country because the ‘all authority and all institutions are evil’ attitude is the one that’s on trend these days but to some people, especially in years passed, felt a strong duty to their country. This was less than 20 years after the end of WW2 and during the Cold War.

Orders from higher authority. The dissenting opinions were suppressed.

A convenient assumption with no evidence to back it up. An no, errors and omissions don’t justify a response of conspiracy and yet that’s what happened. It’s nothing more than a cliché.


10. And talking of the Cold War. When the biggest fear of every politician and citizen was the threat of nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union what kind of lane brain plotters would pick as their dupe a traitor? A man who had defected and offered to give away military secrets.

No he wasn't, and didn't. Both the Americans and the Russians knew he was a CIA asset, as were many others in that program.

Yes he did. And again, that’s no answer. A government trying to avoid panic and to avoid any steps toward further confrontation with Russia would hardly have chose a defector as their fall guy. But again, we are in ‘far reaching plots organised by idiots’ territory.


There was no big conspiracy. The very notion is utterly preposterous. Childish. The result of people pursuing an obsessive hobby over the years to the detriment of truth and the American people. It’s absolutely fashionable to trash the reputation of decent, patriotic men these days. I find it sad and pathetic that people seek to profit from books, documentaries and personal appearances on the strength of it.. It’s the infantilisation of the USA. Oswald alone. 100%.

The terrible "WHY WOULDs" accumulate.. No evidence, just manipulative speculation accompanied by resort to protestations of childish, sad and pathetic. Sherry Fiester's work is definitive to those who actually choose to examine her conclusions, and only those that rely on the obfuscations of lawyers will fail to appreciate that fact

The ‘why would’s’ accumulate George because they never get answered properly as your responses have just proven. And there’s another little dig on the subject of ‘lawyers.’

I don’t care about Fiester. She’s the latest in a long list of fantasists who seek to drown the obvious in a huge turgid lake numbers that Conspiracy theorists find endlessly exciting unless they don’t suit their cause.

It’s my own fault for getting drawn back in here when I said that I wasn’t going to post on this subject. I’m now reminded why. I can see how it goes. The occasional dig, I respond, I get the blame. Well I’m not going to go down that road again. You are free to believe what you want to. 60 years of fairyland, 3,000 different conspiracies suggested. It’s so wearying. I’ll leave you all to it.

[A P Tomlinson]

Here is Shaneyfelt's testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.
Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.

Yeah, I've read it. That bit about the sling just begs the question... if there IS a sling already hard-bolted into the stock... why attach a "homemade, simulated sling" that looks like a piece of rope?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s my own fault for getting drawn back in here when I said that I wasn’t going to post on this subject. I’m now reminded why. I can see how it goes. The occasional dig, I respond, I get the blame. Well I’m not going to go down that road again. You are free to believe what you want to. 60 years of fairyland, 3,000 different conspiracies suggested. It’s so wearying. I’ll leave you all to it.

Just to add a final point that I forgot at the time.

2. Why did the ‘innocent’ Lee leave his wedding ring and $175 (pretty much every cent that he owned) if he was just heading off to a normal day at work?

A dangerous day as a CIA asset.

Which might be true if he was a CIA asset but he wasn’t. Why do you assume a complex answer whilst ignoring the obvious? His gun was missing from its hiding place, he carried a large parcel, no curtain rods were ever found, he pretended that he didn’t know Kennedy was coming. Clearly he was intending to shoot Kennedy

Addition - If he was a CIA asset then he was a CIA asset every day and not just one day per year. So what is being suggested? That Oswald knew that today was the day that he’d be set up as the murderer of the President? Surely you can’t believe that? Something very significant was clearly going on that day and Oswald was aware of it before he left the house (carrying his rifle - proven by the fact that he felt the need for the curtain rods lie)