JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

Meanwhile, two credible witnesses at the Texas Theater put the real Lee Oswald in the movie theater at the time J.D. Tippit was being slain several blocks to the east. We know the real Lee Oswald was in the movie theater because he was soon arrested there. Patron Jack Davis said Oswald was there at about the time the 1:15 movie began, and was oddly moving from seat to seat, as if looking for someone. He even briefly sat next to Davis. Theater manager and ticket-taker “Butch Burroughs” said Oswald came in between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., and that he sold popcorn to Lee Oswald at nearly 1:15 p.m. If true, how could Lee Oswald have murdered J.D. Tippit?

Your source is lying about Jack Davis as well. Davis said that Oswald came in around the time the movie started or shortly afterwards. The movie was scheduled to begin at 1:20pm, not 1:15pm. Davis estimated that the lights came on a few minutes later and Oswald was arrested.

But police dispatch records say that they got a report at 1:44pm that a suspect entered the Texas Theater and a report at 1:52pm that they were arrested. Witness George Applin thought the police arrived about 1:45 p.m

The simplest explanation is that the movie started about 15 minutes late.

[Fiver]

Not at all read it again

''Oswald came in between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., and that he sold popcorn to Lee Oswald at nearly 1:15 p.m. ''

Previously, you supported the idea that Oswald left 1026 N Beckley Ave at 1:04pm. Unless he had a Tardis, he couldn't have arrived at 1pm. Arriving at 1:07pm would have required Oswald to run a full mile in 3 minutes. That's 43 seconds faster than the current world record.

[Fiver]

Let me just blow your little fantasy out of the water tho , So its ''not possible'' for Rosco White to have had access to a police uniform before he started his training on the fouth? Your not much of a detective herlock , if he was the shooter known as ''Badgeman'', what better way than to use a police uniform?he surely would have had access to.

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.

[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)

[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]

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]

About as fake as it get .

[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.

[cobalt]

I'm not keen on long posts that rely on a point-by-point rebuttal since there is a temptation to address the jury (that's us) in the style of Jim Garrison or Vincent Bugliosi. The tone becomes adversarial and is not conducive to weighing up the evidence which is how I, as an imaginary member of the jury, try to look at the case. I want to discuss it with fellow jurors in the jury room, not have Garrison or Bugliosi haranguing me when I do so.

However, each to his own. And I don't think it's a problem when the focus of the debate shifts from ballistics, to medical issues, to political matters etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not keen on long posts that rely on a point-by-point rebuttal since there is a temptation to address the jury (that's us) in the style of Jim Garrison or Vincent Bugliosi. The tone becomes adversarial and is not conducive to weighing up the evidence which is how I, as an imaginary member of the jury, try to look at the case. I want to discuss it with fellow jurors in the jury room, not have Garrison or Bugliosi haranguing me when I do so.

However, each to his own. And I don't think it's a problem when the focus of the debate shifts from ballistics, to medical issues, to political matters etc.

Only if they switch before any response has been made though Cobalt. What would any thread on any subject be like if they contained nothing but post after post of quotes?

[Fiver]

Cutting and Pasting and claims of scoring points is all.

Well, if one has no ideas of their own, it's the only thing they can do.

But if one is going to copy-paste, the proper thing would be to at least link it, to give credit to their sources.

I find the copy-pastes amusing - they contradict the facts, each other, the poster's own theories, and occasionally the laws of physics. They uncritically accept mutually contradictory theories and loonies like Garrison, who legitimate Conspiracists wouldn't touch with a twenty-foot pole.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if one has no ideas of their own, it's the only thing they can do.

But if one is going to copy-paste, the proper thing would be to at least link it, to give credit to their sources.

I find the copy-pastes amusing - they contradict the facts, each other, the poster's own theories, and occasionally the laws of physics. They uncritically accept mutually contradictory theories and loonies like Garrison, who legitimate Conspiracists wouldn't touch with a twenty-foot pole.

What we get is quotes cut and pasted as if they are some new discovery. As if they are proof of something. We could all do it. We try to respond but it becomes impossible to keep up. Quantity over quality. It’s an attempt to avoid scrutiny or criticism or rebuttal.

[Fiver]

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that it never corroborated that Lt. J.C.Day lifted the palmprint.

However, the HSCA did.

The palmprint section must be changed to reflect the latest findings of the FBI that the palmprint had to have been lifted from the barrel because of the marks that appear on the lift that correspond to those on the rifle barrel itself.

Mr. LIBELER - If I may, I will explain exactly what happened in both of those cases, it won't take very long. I think particularly the point on the rifle barrel may be worthwhile. The Dallas Police Department had gotten to the rifle. Very shortly thereafter they sent it to the FBI for fingerprint analysis. The FBI reported there were no prints on the rifle. Four days later the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited 4 days to send this lift to the FBI or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though the print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle barrel and it was still there. Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. It occurred to us that it was possible that in fact the palm print never came from the rifle. We only had the say-so of the Dallas Police Department to that effect and we weren't satisfied with that. We wanted the FBI to establish, if they could, whether that palm print in fact came from that rifle or not. At the time this question was raised no attempt whatever had been made to deal with that problem. Now after the discussion that Mr. Willens and Redlich and I had that was referred to in the testimony Mr. Rankin invited to his office the chief FBI fingerprint expert, Inspector Mally of the FBI, who was liaison with the Commission and I think Mr. Slawson and Mr. Griffin and Mr. Willens and Mr. Redlich and Mr. Rankin met with them. I suggested to Mr. Latona, their fingerprint expert, that there might be some distortion in the lift because it had been taken from a cylindrical surface, sort of a Mercator projection is here, put your hand on a light bulb and take the lift and lay it flat, it might distort the lift from what it might have been on the surface. Latona went back and looked at the lift. He found that there were indications in the lift itself of pits and scores and marks and rust spots that had been on the surface from which the print had been lifted, and happily they conformed precisely to a portion of the underside of the rifle barrel and the FBI so reported to us. As far as I was concerned that conclusively established the proposition that, that that had come from that rifle.

It chose not to say that Day never told the FBI that the palmprint was on the rifle.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that Lt. Day failed to photograph the palmprint in situ before lifting it.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that contrary to Day's claim that there was a remnant of print left on the barrel after the lift, the FBI found no residual of any palmprint or that any lift had occurred.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. EISENBERG. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Mr. DULLES. The original print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.

The Report CHOSE NOT TO SAY that no mention of the discovery of a palmprint was made known until the evening of November 24th, after Oswald was dead.

Your source is lying. Again.

Mr. WADE. This was 8 o'clock roughly on the 24th, Sunday night. I sat down with Captain Fritz and took a pencil and pad and listed about seven pieces of evidence from my own knowledge and I was going to write it down. They got hold of Chief Curry and he said no, that he had told this inspector of the FBI that there would be nothing further said about it.
I asked Chief Batchelor and Lumpkin, they were all there, I said you all are the ones who know something about it, I said if you have at least got the right man in my opinion the American people ought to know.
This is evidence you can't use actually, because he is dead. You can't try him. And the upshot of that was the police wouldn't say a word and refused actually to furnish me any more of the details on this.
I mean what the seven points. I went on out there in from front of the cameras and ran them through those points. Actually my purpose in it was, good or bad was, because the Dallas police were taking a beating because they had solved the crime and had good evidence and I told them it was good but I did leave out some things and I was a little inaccurate in one or two things but it was because of the communications with the police.
I didn't have the map, incidentally. I wanted the map at that time but forgot all about it, and I ran through just what I knew, which probably was worse than nothing.
It probably would have been better off without giving anything, because we didn't give what all we had.
Mr. DULLES. Do you remember the elements of inaccuracy that got into this statement of yours?
Mr. WADE. I think I told them about the palmprint on the bottom of the gun, that Lane has made a great issue of and I still think I was right on it but he has made an issue.

[cobalt]

It wasn't my intention to question the legal abilities of either Garrison or Bugliosi. I was just expressing a preference to keep their type of rhetoric inside the courtroom but not the jury room.

Jim Garrison has long been a hate figure for those committed to the Warren Report. He not only rejected their findings but included the CIA and the powerful press as being engaged in a cover up of the truth. His point about the government seeing its job as to control the people, rather than the people controlling the government is as relevant today as when he said it back in 1967.

So the political elite, the gate holders of democratic discourse, never forgave him for managing to show the hidden Zapruder film in public.

[Fiver]

THE POST MORTEM FINGERPRINTING OF OSWALD

Late in the evening of November 24th, authorities descended on the Miller Funeral Home, where Oswald's corpse was beng prepared for burial. Mortician Paul Groody alleged that during their time there, Oswald's body was fingerprinted.

Groody first made this claim in 1982, nearly two decades after the assassination. No witnesses or evidence back Groody's claim, which makes no sense. The Marines would have had Oswald's fingerprints on file. The Dallas police had Oswald's prints from when he was booked. The Parkland morgue took Oswald's prints as part of his autopsy. The New Orleans police had Oswald's prints from when he was booked

Nobody had any reason to fingerprint Oswald's corpse at the funeral home.

Why would they need a fourth set of his prints ?

They wouldn't. The only purpose for such a visit would be to finally place Oswald's palmprint on the rifle in order to connect him to the weapon.

IMO, the post-mortem fingerprinting of Oswald's corpse was a ruse to give authorities access to the body and to hide the fact that Oswald's palmprint was being placed on the rifle.

I see your source understands nothing about fingerprinting. Fingerprinting someone does not give you the ability to plant their fingerprints on other surfaces. If it did, then fingerprints would be useless as evidence.

And if there was some magical way, unknown to science, to do this the Dallas still wouldn't need to visit the mortuary, as they already had two sets of Oswald's prints.