JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

This thread is now a complete waste of time thanks to the inconsiderate actions of one poster. The forum is here for discussion. The back and forward debate of various aspects of the case under discussion at the time. This is now entirely impossible due to Fishy’s pointlessly bombarding of this thread with massively long cut and pasted articles. He calls it ‘evidence’ and it may be (although it’s simply the opinions of other people which can all be disputed) but what if Fiver and I took this same approach. What is the point of a thread of quotes.?

Post number 3529 is a perfect example. Now, in the past I have, occasionally submitted a long post but they have always been my own words, thoughts and opinions (with quotes from others within) but Fishy’s posts are simply the work of others. How can we operate a discussion thread with posts like the one mentioned above. Both Fiver and myself could respond in detail to all of those in the post but it would take a day of research and writing to do so. Then, just as you are part way through reading that monumental post, Fishy posts another. Then another. And another. This is simply flooding the thread and making discussion/debate impossible.

Now, before the whining begins, I am NOT, repeat NOT trying to claim any authority over the content of people’s posts or of how many posts they make (how could I as I post more than anyone?) but the thread has been provided for discussion. But points aren’t being discussed. A post is made, either Fiver or I make a response but as we are doing it 3 other topics are raised. We are jumping for Tippit, to bullet fragments, to Clint Hill, to Parkland doctors. I’m sorry to say that I can only see this as a tactic to make meaningful discussion impossible.

What is the point of continuing? I logged in this morning to find 5 ‘responses’ from Fishy which I would not all answer but there is just no point in responding because he doesn’t want discussion. Cutting and Pasting and claims of scoring points is all.

[FISHY1118]

About as fake as it get .

[FISHY1118]

And let's remember that Nurse Bell insisted that the fragments removed from Connally's wrist were not merely flakes but were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 mm in length by 2 mm wide. She never wavered from this account.

But WC apologists must reject her testimony because it destroys the single-bullet theory

[FISHY1118]

14) FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine, cardiology, at Parkland at the time of the assassination. Groden and Livingstone reported, "He was
most insistent that the official picture was not representative of the wounds, and he continually laid his hand both on the back of Livingstone's head and his own to show where the large hole was. 'Why do they cover it up?' he repeated numerous times. 'This is not the way it was!' he kept repeating, shaking his
head no." (Groden & Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.45)


Welcome to the list Fouad Bashur

[FISHY1118]

The Badgeman is a fantasy.

Here's a photo of the scene at the time. Look at the corner of the stone wall. The "Badgeman" is a pop bottle.

Is that what there calling it these days ??? , i dont think so . The only fantasy is the Warren Commission Fantasy, as was shown by all the Drs and Nurses at Parkland hospital .Post #3541


Is DORIS NELSON A FANTASY TOO ?



Thank you Doris Nelson [ and the entire list below ] for proving the the JFK Autopsy Photos were faked and the WarrenCommission lied .




17) DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)


''Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)


Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)


Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)