JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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)

[GBinOz]

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.

You are free to believe what you want to.

You seem to define improper answers as the ones that disagree with your opinion. I'm sure that you are aware that the American legal system is not based on "truth and justice", but on muddying the waters, raising unlikely alternatives and offering plea bargains to the first to accept. Perry stated the throat wound was an entry wound, but was badgered into admitting that he wasn't perfect and was capable of error. This was then seized upon to turn an entry wound into an exit wound in the throat for a downward angled shot in the back that Hume stated did not exit the body. Nonsense of the highest order.

Since I am free to believe what I want, I'll believe the findings of the forensic scientist over legal double talk. Incredibly, you openly state your denial of science, labelling it as fantasy and pushing the absurd magic bullet theory contrived by Specter. The throat shot and the head shot came from the south knoll. That is the scientific fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You seem to define improper answers as the ones that disagree with your opinion. I'm sure that you are aware that the American legal system is not based on "truth and justice", but on muddying the waters, raising unlikely alternatives and offering plea bargains to the first to accept. Perry stated the throat wound was an entry wound, but was badgered into admitting that he wasn't perfect and was capable of error. This was then seized upon to turn an entry wound into an exit wound in the throat for a downward angled shot in the back that Hume stated did not exit the body. Nonsense of the highest order.

Since I am free to believe what I want, I'll believe the findings of the forensic scientist over legal double talk. Incredibly, you openly state your denial of science, labelling it as fantasy and pushing the absurd magic bullet theory contrived by Specter. The throat shot and the head shot came from the south knoll. That is the scientific fact.

The response to #2 isn’t an answer George. It’s a random assumption.
You didn’t make any response to #3.
Your response #4 only took into account those bystanders on the Knoll (even though there was nothing to prevent them turning round as they weren’t glued to the spot) but you ignore those on the opposite side who were looking toward the Knoll who could have seen, photographed or filmed the gunman in situ.
The response to number #5 wasn’t a direct response to my point. It was just a way of pointing an ‘unutterably stupid’ comment toward myself and others that don’t conform to the conspiracy myth.
The response to #6 was a random claim that it was somehow established the competent assassinations used crossfire. I produced a number of assassinations that were successful none of which employed crossfire. You chose not to illustrate your suggestion with examples. If there are examples fine, produce them. I can’t find any.
The response to #7 was simply a ‘the more the merrier’ point which smacks of an answer just for the sake of an answer. You don’t need 100’s of conspirators to shoot someone in the head. Only if your plot is so ridiculously convoluted that you need army of people doing follow up work.
The response to #8 doesn’t address my point in any way.
The response to #9 was just a general ‘they were all in on it and they covered it up’ point which didn’t address my point.
The response to #10 was the usual denial of the obvious and an assumption of subterfuge.

I agree George, you are entirely free to believe what you want but for every ‘expert’ who makes a claim other ‘experts’ can be found that gives a different and often opposing view. I have never labelled science as fantasy as you claim but what I do claim is that you are selecting an expert or a group of experts who say that something is proven whilst ignoring the other experts who say that it isn’t proven. The so-called magic bullet theory has been proven. It lines up to the millimetre.

Nothing that you say about the autopsy is fact George. That a corrupt autopsy took place is nonsense. What you and others are suggesting is a group of conspirators having a choice between two options:

A) They get a top sniper with a top weapon, hide him at a convenient point, he shoots the President in the head with the most damaging weapon/bullet combo available so no chance of just a wound occurring, he then walks away into a waiting car. He disappears. Simple, straightforward, very few in a ‘need to know’ position, nothing required after the event apart from escape, no one to blab, no photos faking, no dodgy autopsies.

or,

B) The pick a guy who the public find out was a former defector to the Soviet Union, he has to try and sneak a rifle into work, they have to hope that no one can categorically prove that he wasn’t on the 6th floor, they have to plant fingerprints on the rifle, they have to hope that no one finds a 4th bullet because they’ve only decided to plant 3 cartridges, they don’t bother providing an escape, they have to set up a fake autopsy using God know’s how many people (anyone of whom might have slipped up and spilled the beans or one day had an attack of conscience or made some death bed confession) then the President sets up a commission of people from the left and right headed by a man who saw Kennedy as a second son and persuades them all to betray their country and the President that most of them respected greatly.

And you and the rest of those on the conspiracy side actually go for option B (or a version of it - including swapping weapons and things like that)

It beggars belief George. This simply cannot have happened. It’s spy novel stuff. Mission Improbable.

There’s no need to respond George (and no, I’m not trying to give you orders) because I really would prefer to leave it at that. The debates on this subject get us nowhere. Believe what you want to believe and I’ll do the same.