JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[GBinOz]

I have answered this several times. Knott Labs assumes the JFK throat shot was at Zapruder frame 225, but the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK had started raising his arms to his throat in frame 224, meaning JFK was hit some tome before then.

I dare say that Patrick is struggling with your somewhat condescending logic in that, while you dismiss Knottlab as not adopting the "correct" Zapruder frame, you cannot know the "correct" Zapruder frame, other than to speculate "before 224", but are at the same time adamant that Connally must have been precisely aligned for that Magic Bullet shot at that precise unknown moment.

While Knottlab start well by placing the back shot in the back, rather than in the back of the neck, they then submit to the fantasy by showing that shot emerging from the throat.

But wait. While Ford used a "^" "of the neck" after "the wound to the back" to alter the autopsy, we will now hear how we should ignore the evidence of the autopsy, Burkley, Siebert and O'Neill, Hill and Bennett, as well as the holes in the shirt and coat and hear, again, the pronouncement of the "shirt and coat were riding up" theory:

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh so when you see "Actual Evidence" you don't agree with you simply ignore it and it doesn't count? Is that it ? .

Thank you for confirming that.

And just to educate you a little on your Autopsy experts who examined the back of jfk head photo, how many were there with clint Hill and the back of the limo on the 22nd of November 1963 ?.

THE HOLE IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD THE SIZE OF I COULD PUT MY FIST IN .

Deal in real facts ,not warren commission conspiracy.

And an actual film footage of the incident showing no hole in the back of Kennedy’s head proves that Hill, in the heat of a traumatic moment, simply mistook the area around Kennedy’s ear with the back of his head. There was blood a gore everywhere, Kennedy’s head moved and yet you think that Clint Hill was in a position to make an accurate Forensic judgment when his entire aim was to protect Jackie. This idea is laughable Fishy. In any investigation those doing the investigation favour actual evidence (photographs, CCTV footage, camera phone footage etc) above fallible human beings. It’s noticeable how, in the ripper case, you have no problem in accepting that witnesses can be mistaken and yet in this case, when you think that those witnesses favour your point of view, you suddenly move into infallible witness mode? Also, what about the witnesses who talk about the wound being where it actually was? Why are those witnesses fallible in your cherrypicking exercise?

The Zapruder film is evidence Fishy. Conspiracy theorists are quite happy to cherrypick that too though of course. They are quite happy to keep on about the direction of Kennedy’s head movement (ignoring the forward movement of course) but they will not accept the fact that this film shows exactly where the wound in Kennedy’s head was located - and it wasn’t at the back.

Every single witness in Dealey Plaza is a questionable witness. Ask any police officer about the reliability of witnesses in a gunshot situation Fishy and they will tell you but of course that won’t suit your point of view so your likeliest next move will be to ignore it. Strangely though, a witness who was in a better position, had more time, saw things before the shots, came forward straight away was Howard Brennan of course. But no, he doesn’t fit the conspiracy so he’s dismissed in Operation Cherrypick.

And by the way, other people’s opinions aren’t evidence unless they are specialists in a field that is under discussion. Try looking further than Gil Jesus. My question again is why do you never actually discuss individual evidence but you appear to believe that value is added by cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion followed by a gloating sentence from yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the Knott Lab reconstruction photo diagram it shows their idea of the plotted course of the bullet. Did they track that back to a location where they believe that the ‘second bullet’ must have come from?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great...... More inconsistencies where the cancarno rifle accuracy and effectiveness is concerned. Expert witnesses have testified to the opposite .

What else you got ?

Btw can you explain the Autopsy photo of the back of JFKs head that Clint Hill makes a mockery of ?

Which one of your medical experts who conducted the autopsy where there in limo with clint Hill?

Thats right NONE.....

No Fishy. The autopsy photo and the Zapruder film make a mockery of Clint Hill’s recollection. A fallible human being against infallible evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Conspiracy theorists are the only people in the world who favour fallible witnesses over actual physical evidence. They prefer infantile, baseless, shouts of fake. Just imaging this happening in a court trial.

“So, members of the jury, we have CCTV footage from a camera just 20 yards away showing Mr Smith attacking the victim with an axe. There he is, dressed exactly as he was when arrested 5 minutes later covered in the victims blood. A yet Mr Smith claims to have walked around the corner and slipped on a puddle of blood and fell on top of the already dead witness and this is verified by his best friend Mr Jones who happened to be across the road at the time standing beneath the CCTV camera scratching his head. Who do we believe?”

Lets hope that there would be no conspiracy theorists on that jury.

[GBinOz]

Conspiracy theorists are the only people in the world who favour fallible witnesses over actual physical evidence. They prefer infantile, baseless, shouts of fake. Just imaging this happening in a court trial.

Conspiracy Theorist - A term used to discredit those who see through the Bullsh*t.

I am not used to being labelled as "infantile' and "baseless". Particularly by someone who has admitted to ZERO knowledge of firearms and ballistics - the actual standard for assessing the physical evidence.

Never the less I shall, as an someone assessed as a dullard by our resident expert, refrain from further opinion and content myself with the following quote:
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

[Patrick Differ]

I have answered this several times. Knott Labs assumes the JFK throat shot was at Zapruder frame 225, but the Zapruder film clearly shows that JFK had started raising his arms to his throat in frame 224, meaning JFK was hit some tome before then.

This answer makes no sense and is technically ridiculous.

The Zapruder Frames were 18.5 frames per second and you think that somehow that an alignment on a horizontal and vertical plane and it's related acute angles changed in 1 frame?

The fact Knott uncovered is that in order to make the Single Bullet work- out of the throat and into the right armpit of Connally..Connally would have had to be sitting 6 to 10 inches to Kennedys left in the car. He wasn't. He was directly in front of Kennedy along the horizontal plane of the car door.

[Patrick Differ]

On the Knott Lab reconstruction photo diagram it shows their idea of the plotted course of the bullet. Did they track that back to a location where they believe that the ‘second bullet’ must have come from?

This is not a reconstruction photo diagram. It is a plot using lasers to capture the entire physical realm to scale using millions of data points. The input to the digital twin created by the 3D plot included actual photos taken at the scene and the Zapruder film. It also included the original locations of signs and posts and actual elevation of the street as it has been resurfaced by 2 inches since 1963.

The plot not only captures the sixth floor it captures the point of the gun in the window to the supposed point of entry on the Autopsy photos and xrays. It would not matter the frame because all of those positions by frame are produced at scale.

Technology advances and becomes more accurate over time. Digital Twin has been around for about 7 or 8 years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

George - Conspiracy Theorist - A term used to discredit those who see through the Bullsh*t.

Herlock - The term means someone who believes in a conspiracy which, as far as I can see, describes yourself, Fishy, Patrick and Cobalt exactly. So I can’t see why you object to it?

You appear to have no issue though with people being called ‘Warren Commission apologists’ or when comments like “WHO RAN THE PHONEY WARREN COMMISSION RIFLE TEST ?” or “Bogus Warren commission conspiracy” are made. Why do you consider this type of thing acceptable George. After all, it’s simply an opinion as the WC cannot be proven dishonest, whereas calling a conspiracy theorist a conspiracy theorist is simply a statement of fact.


George - I am not used to being labelled as "infantile' and "baseless".

Herlock - I made a general comment. In a previous I made it clear that I don’t always lump all conspiracy theorists into the same class but I surely can’t be expected to do this every time the phrase is used? Perhaps we should stop using the phrase but do you think that others will stop labelling people who don’t think the WC corrupt as apologists?

I would also have to point out that you failed to stand up and complain when Fishy described non-conspiracy believers in this way “But as they say "you can't put brains in monuments" or “The Lone Nutters can't have it both ways.” Or even when he said “Your not much of a detective herlock.” Or this “The above is signature method tactics for the WC, Bugliosi, and their apologists.” Or even when you posted this about me “ Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.” I didn’t complain about you calling me dishonest and I’d challenge to find a post where I’ve directly called you dishonest because you won’t find one. These comments don’t bother me but I’d have hoped that we all operate under the same rules.


George - Particularly by someone who has admitted to ZERO knowledge of firearms and ballistics - the actual standard for assessing the physical evidence.

Herlock - You appear to be rather fixated on ballistics and firearm knowledge. Yes, I know nothing about guns but I’ve never claimed to. What I’ve stated is that the case has been made by people that do. Experts used by the WC and the HSCA were experts. As well as other experts over the years. I don’t need to be a ballistics experts to tell you that the Grassy Knoll would have been the worst location ever for a gunman.


George - Never the less I shall, as an someone assessed as a dullard by our resident expert, refrain from further opinion and content myself with the following quote:

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

Herlock - Find me the post where I’ve labelled you a ‘dullard’ George. In fact…find me the post where I’ve labelled you anything.

Are these kind of posts necessary. And why do you apply different standards to Fishy than you do to me?

Theres no need to respond George because I’m not going to keep going on about this. It’s Deja vu.

[Fiver]

In total, 3 FBI agents fired 27 rounds from the CE 139 rifle and not one round hit where they were aiming at.

Oswald wasn't aiming at bullseye, he was aiming at a whole man.

The results of these tests proved that the rifle was NOT accurate and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified that it was.

The results of the tests proved the rifle was accurate.

Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

When multiple shots are interlocking, even at a short range, that is an extremely accurate rifle.

The distance from the aiming point shows that the scope was not well sighted.

Mr. EISENBERG - How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER - They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

We don't know when that obvious damage to the scope occurred. If it was before Oswald took it to the TSBD, then he could have adjusted by aiming slightly low and to the left. If it occurred in transit to the TSBD, Oswald would have just used the iron sights. He had more than enough training to do either. Or the scope could have been damaged by being dropped into the hiding place just after the shooting, in which case that damage would have no effect on accuracy, since it occurred after the shooting.

But lets say, for the sake of argument, that Oswald completely missed noticing the damage to his scope and failed to realize that his misaligned scope meant he was firing high and slightly to the right. He would have been trained to aim for the center of mass, which meant a rifle firing high and slightly to the right would have hit JFK in the neck or head instead of the upper back.

[GBinOz]

The above is signature method tactics for the WC, Bugliosi, and their apologists[/I].” Or even when you posted this about me “ Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.”

Fishy didn't post that first comment, I did. The second comment wasn't directed at you, but at the cut and paster who labels every post he doesn't agree with as deceptive or lying, and posts irrelevant documents to try to prove a point that isn't there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fishy didn't post that first comment, I did. The second comment wasn't directed at you, but at the cut and paster who labels every post he doesn't agree with as deceptive or lying, and posts irrelevant documents to try to prove a point that isn't there.

“Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post.“

People say various things George but only I seem to get pulled up on them by other posters.

[Fiver]

One of those flunkies the Commission called on was Marine Master Sergeant James Zahm, who told the Commission that Oswald's training and the equipment he used made him capable of committing the crime. ( 11 H 309 )
But Zahm was neither an expert on Oswald, the scope or the rifle. He had never spent time on a firing range with Oswald. He had never test fired the rifle or tried to sight in the scope.

I see your source has no problems defaming people. And is just fine with ignoring what Zahm actually said. Zahm was never asked to evaluate the rifle or the scope.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

Sgt Zahm based his conclusions on Oswald's shooting scores in the military.

So did Major Anderson.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on what you see of Mr. Oswald's marksmanship capabilities from the Marine Corps records which you have before you, Major Anderson, how would you characterize him as a marksman?
Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The big issue of course is one that Fiver and I have mentioned numerous times but one that appears to be ‘water off a ducks back’ to those supporting conspiracy. It is the glaring contradiction of, on one had a group of conspirators so powerful that they can influence/control the CIA, the FBI, the police, the medical profession, the Secret Service, the military, the autopsy pathologists and the Warren Commission and yet, on the other hand a bunch of clowns that could make Laurel and Hardy look like geniuses. Why doesn’t this bother them? Why does this staggering anomaly bounce off them with no effect? Clearly it has to be about what they ‘want’ or ‘need’ to be true. There can be no other explanation for this ongoing and remarkable situation. On and on they go about disputed trajectories and disputed measurements, and exercises in witness cherrypicking and yet when you present them with something that provably makes no sense we get nothing sensible in response (usually nothing at all)


Would any conspiracy have put themselves in a position where so much could go wrong - NO.

Would any conspiracy have had so many people ‘in on it’ - NO.

Would any conspiracy have left themselves so much still to do after the event - NO


Therefore this conspiracy cannot have happened. Just on those three points alone (and there are more of course) No conspirators would have plumbed the depths of stupidity like that. This is ALL that we need to consider. No silly quibbling is required. The conspiracy couldn’t have happened. Therefore everything is explained. When we have a situation where fallible eyewitnesses are given precedence over actual physical evidence then it’s time to wave the white flag. You cannot debate with this kind of approach. A conspiracy supporter cannot reason his way out of a point that he has t reasoned his way into in the first place. It’s like debating with someone who claims that his particular ripper suspect had super powers. Conspiracy supporters just call ‘fake’ when they come up against evidence that categorically proves them wrong. Every brick wall of evidence…fake.

Fishy, as an example, thinks that if someone believes that they’ve seen something but a photograph says otherwise then it’s the photograph that’s wrong. Yes folks this is what we are constantly up against. People using this kind of ‘logic’ whilst talking down to us non-believers in conspiracy. It’s so obvious, or at least it should be. If a witnesses testimony doesn’t match a photograph or film footage this is under no circumstances proof of faking. But this is exactly how Fishy thinks…and he’s far from alone sadly. As if we are the ones coming up with craziness. I’ll say it again…ask the police….photographs and film footage trumps eyewitnesses..every time. Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence.

Perhaps we should ask again…which side is it that came up with Badge Man, Umbrella Man, Sewer Man, Prayer Man, Menninger’s madness, Lifton’s lunacy, Greer as the gunman, Garrison’s 1000 gunmen homosexual thrill kill theory, Beverly Oliver and her camera that didn’t exist, Gordon Arnold who became invisible on camera, Ricky White and his memories as a baby. I could add more and more but how many crazy theories do you see coming from the LG side. None. It’s a bit of an uneven distribution would you say? And yet the conspiracy side constantly try to assume the high ground. What planet are we on. Planet Conspiracy I’m afraid.

[GBinOz]

I’ll say it again…ask the police….photographs and film footage trumps eyewitnesses..every time. Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence.


I could add more and more but how many crazy theories do you see coming from the LG side. None. It’s a bit of an uneven distribution would you say?

Here's the FBI photo of the evidence found on the sixth floor of the TSBD:




Photo trumps eyewitnesses - "Therefore it is the witnesses that were mistaken and not the physical evidence". That's settled, only two shots fired through the Carcano. Or were these the cases from the Mauser?

The crazy theory that is crazier than all the others put together is the Magic Bullet theory, put together by an ambitious junior lawyer, who wasn't at the autopsy, without having seen ANY photographs or film footage, just DRAWINGS that shifted the bullet wound from the "back" to the "back ^ of the neck".

There are many other crazy theories "from the LG side" which have been detailed before, so there is no point in repeating them only to have them again fall on deaf ears.