Past Postings

Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.


This past week, and on my time off from my regular work and studies, I went through a number of JFK assassination related videos on YouTube, taking notes and considering and re-consideration different points in the case, and thought I would write up a little summary and review of my thoughts pertaining to that controversy. In the opinions I express that follow, I may admittedly in a given instance be mistaken or need to modify my position, but if so I hope you understand that I am at least willing to hear counter arguments and try to be fair and impartial in my doing so. This said, below are some thoughts and conclusions I adopt on the JFK assassination at present.

In my approach to the case I believe very strong in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and that we should in general lean toward giving people accused the benefit of the doubt; not least of which when it comes to questions of motive. If I have learned anything in life, it is that more often than not people do wrong while in their own minds thinking themselves benevolent and meaning well; no matter how blameworthy the action is otherwise.

First, I am inclined to think Oswald was not the assassin, or at least evidence claiming he was is no fully convincing, and that almost certainly he was set up by others to take the rap. This is not to say he may have been guilty of something, perhaps he was (say, resisting arrest at the Texas theater.) But as far as his killing either Kennedy or Tippit, I am as yet unpersuaded.

Although I don't have the time to go into them in any detail here, the following points (in no particular order) raised by others (or myself) seem to me to show that the Warren Commission's findings at minimum deserve reconsideration if not out right rejection. Of course, this does not pretend by any means to be a complete list, but only some of the arguments that to me and off-hand appear to be among the most compelling.

1. Murder of Oswald by Ruby; with implications that the former was possibly being silenced; and including how Ruby could make his way into the police garage (described by reporters on the scene as "an armed camp") without being either recognized or inspected.
2. That Oswald should "just happened" to have job at a location along the motorcade route seems too good to be true.
3. The tampering and disappearance of medical and other evidence (including Zapruder film), as for instance brought out in the work of David Lifton and Douglas P. Horne, strikes me as both confirmed and wholly inexcusable. (I would, however, like a better and more clear explanation, by Lifton and or Horne, as to how the body switch was made on the plane, and how the real body was moved unseen to Bethesda before the fake casket.)
4. The discrepancy between the Mauser found and the alleged Mannlicher Carcano.
5. The extraordinarily bizarre character of Tippit shooting appears extremely suspicious and inexplicable; so much so that I would even be willing to consider a theory that Tippit wasn't actually killed at all, and that perhaps his death was even faked and a put on.
6. As Mark Lane brought to our attention, paraffin test on Oswald by Dallas police show he did not fire a gun.
7. The too man to name witnesses and investigators, like Roger Craig or Dorothy Kilgallen, who were shortly after murdered or suffered an untimely death clearly suggests a possible cover up.
8. Bullet found on stretcher at Parkland Hospital seems little short of ridiculous.
9. Early reports, including by doctors at Parkland, that JFK was shot in the right temple.

Other points that argue in favor of the cover-up or conspiracy view are brought out in the following discussions, and which I highly recommend for any examining the case:

1. Regarding possible Oswald double theory:
["Who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald?."]
2. The Girl on the Stairs story.
["Barry Ernest: The Girl on the Stairs"]
3. Oswald phone call to N.C. after arrest in Dallas.
["Lee Harvey Oswald's Phone Call Before Assassination" -- should read "after the assassination"]
4. Not on YouTube, but which I saw on tv years back but now can't find it on DVD or anywhere:
"JFK Last Days" (2004, President John F. Kennedy's last days in office; from series "Time and Again" with Jane Pauley.

Two videos I watched this weekend and that I found very interesting were interviews with persons who believe the Warren report:
["Kennedy Assassination ~ Malcolm Kilduff Interview" - done at Sixth Floor Museum]
["Q&A: Gerald Blaine & Clint Hill" - interview of C-SPAN]; see also Vince Palamara's response to this on his channel.

As much as I over all disagree with the pro-Warren report people, in such interviews as this they come across as likeable and personable individuals. It is almost comical how Vince Palamara at times has vilified Clint Hill, when even if Hill is misguided or mistaken, he comes across otherwise as being a credible and good person. And yet it is not hard to see certain regrettable tendencies that perhaps might explain their attitudes, and which they could be faulted as follows; while asking do they take the position they do simply not to prevent themselves from being ostracized?

1. They resort to straw man arguments, citing, for instance, ridiculous conspiracy claims like Bill Greer was the gunman, while ignoring sound ones.
2. They make little or no effort to be actually impartial and objective. After all how can they be so sure the conspiracy theorists are on every point absolutely and incontrovertibly wrong?
3. Not Killduff, Blaine or Hill, but some pro Warren people at length bring up allegations, whether true or false, of Kennedy being a womanizer or a drug taker (the "Dr. Feelgood story) risking the safety of the nation. Now really, what possible relevance does this have to proving Oswald's guilt?

The following I don't believe:

1. Badge Man -- I just don't see it.
2. Beverly Oliver -- she could be the Babushka lady, and she seems sincere, but I frankly can't help but be suspicious of her claims.
3. Joseph McBride's take on the Tippit case to me is suspect. Again I may be wrong, but I find his version rather too broad brush with Tippit's character, evincing a certain unwarranted presumption and unfairness. Also how solid is his proof that he actually interviewed Tippit's father, and that what he recorded was what was actually said?
4. Oliver Stone's "JFK" is in large measure as absurd as the pro-Warren Commission people say it is; but he does deserve credit for bringing attention to the work of Jim Garrison.


[ch. 7]
The Greek preparatory culture, therefore, with philosophy itself, is shown to have come down from God to men, not with a definite direction but in the way in which showers fall down on the good land, and on the dunghill, and on the houses. And similarly both the grass and the wheat sprout; and the figs and any other reckless trees grow on sepulchres. And things that grow, appear as a type of truths. For they enjoy the same influence of the rain. But they have not the same grace as those which spring up in rich soil, inasmuch as they are withered or plucked up. And here we are aided by the parable of the sower, which the Lord interpreted. For the husbandman of the soil which is among men is one; He who from the beginning, from the foundation of the world, sowed nutritious seeds; He who in each age rained down the Lord, the Word. But the times and places which received [such gifts], created the differences which exist. Further, the husbandman sows not only wheat (of which there are many varieties), but also other seeds— barley, and beans, and peas, and vetches, and vegetable and flower seeds. And to the same husbandry belongs both planting and the operations necessary in the nurseries, and gardens, and orchards, and the planning and rearing of all sorts of trees.

In like manner, not only the care of sheep, but the care of herds, and breeding of horses, and dogs, and bee-craft, all arts, and to speak comprehensively, the care of flocks and the rearing of animals, differ from each other more or less, but are all useful for life. And philosophy— I do not mean the Stoic, or the Platonic, or the Epicurean, or the Aristotelian, but whatever has been well said by each of those sects, which teach righteousness along with a science pervaded by piety—this eclectic whole I call philosophy. But such conclusions of human reasonings, as men have cut away and falsified, I would never call divine.

And now we must look also at this, that if ever those who know not how to do well, live well; for they have lighted on well-doing. Some, too, have aimed well at the word of truth through understanding. “But Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith.” [Romans 4] It is therefore of no advantage to them after the end of life, even if they do good works now, if they have not faith. Wherefore also the Scriptures were translated into the language of the Greeks, in order that they might never be able to allege the excuse of ignorance, inasmuch as they are able to hear also what we have in our hands, if they only wish. One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself. The guessing at truth is one thing, and truth itself is another. Resemblance is one thing, the thing itself is another. And the one results from learning and practice, the other from power and faith. For the teaching of piety is a gift, but faith is grace. “For by doing the will of God we know the will of God.” [John 7:17] “Open, then,” says the Scripture, “the gates of righteousness; and I will enter in, and confess to the Lord .” But the paths to righteousness (since God saves in many ways, for He is good) are many and various, and lead to the Lord's way and gate. And if you ask the royal and true entrance, you will hear, “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter in by it.” While there are many gates open, that in righteousness is in Christ, by which all the blessed enter, and direct their steps in the sanctity of knowledge. Now Clemens, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, while expounding the differences of those who are approved according to the Church, says expressly, “One may be a believer; one may be powerful in uttering knowledge; one may be wise in discriminating between words; one may be terrible in deeds.”
~ Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215), The Stromata, Book 1.


Listening to a program that discussed hypnotism earlier today, I thought I might offer my own brief and passing comments on the subject, particularly in light of my experience with crackpot the magician, and which are as follows:

In the course of dream productions, I myself have been hypnotized to think or react a certain way. However, the force of the hypnotist/magician commands is limited and restricted by my own inherent willingness to think or do the thing. So that, in other words, the more I am, when fully conscious and normally, not inclined to do a thing, the less possible is it for the hypnotist to get me to think or react that way asleep, say, in a dream production.


[ch. 5]
...And Scripture will afford a testimony to what has been said in what follows. Sarah was at one time barren, being Abraham's wife. Sarah having no child, assigned her maid, by name Hagar, the Egyptian, to Abraham, in order to get children. Wisdom, therefore, who dwells with the man of faith (and Abraham was reckoned faithful and righteous), was still barren and without child in that generation, not having brought forth to Abraham anything allied to virtue. And she, as was proper, thought that he, being now in the time of progress, should have intercourse with secular culture first (by Egyptian the world is designated figuratively); and afterwards should approach to her according to divine providence, and beget Isaac...

...For it is not by nature, but by learning, that people become noble and good, as people also become physicians and pilots...

...Again, God has created us naturally social and just; whence justice must not be said to take its rise from implantation alone. But the good imparted by creation is to be conceived of as excited by the commandment; the soul being trained to be willing to select what is noblest.

But as we say that a man can be a believer without learning, so also we assert that it is impossible for a man without learning to comprehend the things which are declared in the faith. But to adopt what is well said, and not to adopt the reverse, is caused not simply by faith, but by faith combined with knowledge. But if ignorance is want of training and of instruction, then teaching produces knowledge of divine and human things. But just as it is possible to live rightly in penury of this world's good things, so also in abundance. And we avow, that at once with more ease and more speed will one attain to virtue through previous training. But it is not such as to be unattainable without it; but it is attainable only when they have learned, and have had their senses exercised. [Hebrews 5:14] “For hatred,” says Solomon, “raises strife, but instruction guards the ways of life;” in such a way that we are not deceived nor deluded by those who are practiced in base arts for the injury of those who hear. “But instruction wanders reproachless,” [Proverbs 10:19] it is said. We must be conversant with the art of reasoning, for the purpose of confuting the deceitful opinions of the sophists. Well and felicitously, therefore, does Anaxarchus write in his book respecting “kingly rule:” “Erudition benefits greatly and hurts greatly him who possesses it; it helps him who is worthy, and injures him who utters readily every word, and before the whole people. It is necessary to know the measure of time. For this is the end of wisdom. And those who sing at the doors, even if they sing skilfully, are not reckoned wise, but have the reputation of folly.” And Hesiod:—

“Of the Muses, who make a man loquacious, divine, vocal.”

For him who is fluent in words he calls loquacious; and him who is clever, vocal; and “divine,” him who is skilled, a philosopher, and acquainted with the truth.
~ Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215), The Stromata, Book 1.


[ch. 1]
"...For we are God's husbandmen, God's husbandry. You are God's building,” [1 Corinthians 3:8-9] according to the apostle. Wherefore the hearers are not permitted to apply the test of comparison. Nor is the word, given for investigation, to be committed to those who have been reared in the arts of all kinds of words, and in the power of inflated attempts at proof; whose minds are already pre-occupied, and have not been previously emptied. But whoever chooses to banquet on faith, is steadfast for the reception of the divine words, having acquired already faith as a power of judging, according to reason. Hence ensues to him persuasion in abundance. And this was the meaning of that saying of prophecy, “If you believe not, neither shall you understand.” [Isaiah 7:9] “As, then, we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to the household of faith.” [Galatians 6:10] And let each of these, according to the blessed David, sing, giving thanks. “You shall sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. You shall wash me, and I shall be whiter than the snow. You shall make me to hear gladness and joy, and the bones which have been humbled shall rejoice. Turn Your face from my sins. Blot out mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit in my inward parts. Cast me not away from Your face, and take not Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and establish me with Your princely spirit.” ...
~ Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215), The Stromata, Book 1.


[ch. 7]
...In a word, the Christian is characterized by composure, tranquillity, calmness, and peace.
~ Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215), The Paedagogus, Book 3.