JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

That doesn't exclude the fact Tague believed it was the second shot.

Like Connally , your relying on them being completely wrong with no real evidence to prove otherwise.

That's a rather ironic statement for you to make.

* Connally thought the first bullet hit JFK. I disagree. You think he's right.
* Connally thought there were three shots. I agree. You think he's wrong.
* Connally thought all shots came from the Book Depository. I agree. You think he's wrong.
* Connally thought Oswald fired all three shots. I agree. You think he's wrong.
* Connally thought there was no Conspiracy. I agree. You think he's wrong.

* Tague thought he was struck by the second bullet. I disagree. You think he's right.
* Tague thought there were three shots. I agree. You think he's wrong.
* Tague thought all shots came from the Book Depository. I agree. You think he's wrong.

I disagree with the witnesses on 2 points. You disagree with the witnesses on 6 points.

I think we've established who is relying on the witnesses being completely wrong.

[cobalt]

Semantics.

Pretty much what Lee J. Cobb said in Twelve Angry Men.

What you are presenting as 'conclusive evidence' is no more than indicative evidence. If you can't distinguish between these two concepts then you bound to become very frustrated with those can.

[Fiver]

My previous posts gave reasons to the three shots from the tsbd, and why the 4th shot most people thought was simultaneously fired at the same as the 3rd .

There were dozens of witnesses that made this claim.

That is incorrect.

2% of the witnesses heard 1 shot.
12% of the witnesses heard 2 shots.
80% of the witnesses heard 3 shots.
5% of the witnesses heard 4 or more shots.

A more detailed tabulation on number of shots shows that out of 178 witnesses:
* 6 thought there were 4 shots.
* 1 thought there were 4 or 5 shots.
* 1 thought there were 5 shots.
* 1 thought there were 6 shots.
* 1 thought there were 8 shots.

That's not even a dozen, let alone dozens that thought they heard 4 or more shots.

[Fiver]

Oh ,and if not the 2nd bullet that was responsible for James Tagues wound,

Which of the 3 shots fired was it ?

As has been stated, either the first shot that missed or a fragment of the 3rd shot that struck JFK in the head.

Where do you put the Tague wounding in your sequence of four?

[Fiver]

Thank you for that admission. The first link I suggested was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_VpUbJQuRc&rco=1&ab_channel=SouthKnollInv estigations

We get barely more than a minute in before the video claims that most witnesses agreed that three or more shots were heard.

That's true, but it would be even more true to say most witnesses agreed that three or less shots were heard.

A tabulation shows
2% heard 1 shot.
12% heard 2 shots.
81% heard 3 shots.
5% heard 4 or more shots.

The video is deliberately being deceptive, so I stopped there.

[Fiver]

There are some initial results from a forensic survey here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkiLqJANKEA&ab_channel=NewsNation

That initial conclusion is that the bullets that hit JFK and Connolly were on different trajectories, thus debunking the single bullet theory.

You can find Knott Laboratory here.

Looking at their Comparison of Bullet Trajectories photo, and comparing it to the Zapruder film, we can see that KL has Connally facing nearly directly forward, but the Zapruder film shows Connally was turned sharoly to his right.

So either Knott Laboratory is incompetent or they are being deliberately deceptive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pretty much what Lee J. Cobb said in Twelve Angry Men.

What you are presenting as 'conclusive evidence' is no more than indicative evidence. If you can't distinguish between these two concepts then you bound to become very frustrated with those can.

The only frustration that arises Cobalt is when people deliberately ignore what is obvious.

Oswald took a long package to work. This is a fact.

It wasn’t curtain rods.

What else could it have been?

[Fiver]

In a kangaroo court of law perhaps. If the gunman had picked up all the cartridge cases and left with them that would not mean no shots were fired. And if the gunman had dropped six cartridge cases that would not mean six shots had been fired either; he could have been carrying some from a practice shot the day earlier. That's not many people's idea of the word 'conclusive.'

The important thing in court is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Neither of your examples affect reasonable doubt. A gunman might choose to pick up all cartridge cases to hide evidence, but that's not what happened. It is not reasonable to suggest that a gunman brought along spent shells and dropped them in addition to the ones ejected as he fired the rifle.

Suggesting that all shells were planted is reasonable if other evidence did not contradict it, but ballistics testing showed that the recovered bullets and bullet fragments came from Oswald's gun.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any opinion that says that the Warren Commission was a fraud can and absolutely should be ignored.

[Fiver]

I think it was a palmprint on the rifle which was matched with Oswald. The chain of evidence relating to this has been discussed before, but if we accept the palmprint it does not tell us that Oswald fired the gun on that day. It tells us that Oswald had handled the gun which is not the same thing.

The palmprint does not stand alone. There is a partial print on the trigger guard that is consistent with Oswald's. There are Oswald's finger and palm prints on the cardboard boxes in positions that only made sense if he assembled the sniper's nest. And there are Oswald's finger and palm prints on the paper bag in a position that matches the way Frazier and Randle said that Oswald carried the bag.

[Fiver]

Again the word 'conclusive' is being misused. Neither Buell Frazier nor his sister believed that Oswald was carrying a rifle to his work that day. Since they were the only two witnesses who remembered seeing Oswald carrying a package there is therefore no witness who claims that Oswald was carrying a package containing a rifle. That notion comes from pure speculation on the part of the authorities who had to totally accept the Fraziers' evidence whilst, paradoxically, discounting it.

Oswald claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Frazier believed the bag was large enough to carry curtain rods, so clearly this was not just a lunch sack. Oswald did not need curtain rods, his apartment already had them. Oswald did not take the bag with him when he left the Book Depository. No curtain rods were found at the Book Depository. A paper bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle was found in the sniper's nest. The bag had Oswald's finger and palm prints in positions that matched the way Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying the bag of "curtain rods".

[Fiver]

Simply because Tague and Connally contradict the phony Warren commission report. That's just a fact 100 %

Tague and Connally contradict each other on some points, such as where the second bullet went.

They agree with the Warren Report on number and location of shots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oswald claimed that the bag contained curtain rods. Frazier believed the bag was large enough to carry curtain rods, so clearly this was not just a lunch sack. Oswald did not need curtain rods, his apartment already had them. Oswald did not take the bag with him when he left the Book Depository. No curtain rods were found at the Book Depository. A paper bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle was found in the sniper's nest. The bag had Oswald's finger and palm prints in positions that matched the way Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying the bag of "curtain rods".

Exactly Fiver. Obviously Frazer couldn’t see what was in the package and it was entirely to be expected that his friend and sister wouldn’t have suspected him of carrying a rifle. Those close to killers often don’t wish to consider such things.

All that we get is a word salad. He definitely had a large package - Frazer and Randle’s were absolutely adamant. When Oswald was asked he never said that he didn’t have a large package with him so this proves that he was carrying a long package. He made up the story about curtain rods. No curtain rods were found and he clearly didn’t need curtain rods. So common sense tells us that he was carrying a rifle. It’s one of the, if not the most embarrassing of CT’s positions when they deny what is obvious. Oswald was sneaking his rifle into work.

WHY?

[cobalt]

Neither of your examples affect reasonable doubt. A gunman might choose to pick up all cartridge cases to hide evidence, but that's not what happened.

We don't know for sure what happened. In theory the gunman could have fired four shots and pocketed one cartridge case. I'm not using that example as something likely to have happened but to warn against what we think we 'know.'

If the gunman made no attempt to hide the cartridge case evidence it's not clear to me why he decided to hide the rifle. I'm bearing in mind the heightened emotional state a person would likely be in after shooting the POTUS, so any subsequent actions might not be entirely rational. But presuming that speed of exit was of the essence, there seems little point in him stashing the rifle between some cartons a distance away from the window. He knows it's going to be found eventually (I think after about 40 minutes of police searching the 6th floor) so he would have been as well leaving it in the sniper's nest.

By the time ownership of the rifle can be traced back to him the gunman presumably would have intended to leave town fast. This was very important for Oswald if he was the gunman since he knew there was a paper trail leading back to him. So it's odd that Oswald allegedly took time to hide the rifle then, instead of leaving town, decided to head off to the cinema.

[Lewis C]

By the time ownership of the rifle can be traced back to him the gunman presumably would have intended to leave town fast. This was very important for Oswald if he was the gunman since he knew there was a paper trail leading back to him. So it's odd that Oswald allegedly took time to hide the rifle then, instead of leaving town, decided to head off to the cinema.

He went to the cinema after shooting the policeman. We don't know if he would have gone to the cinema if he hadn't shot the policeman first.