Discussion:
How Far Can We Trust the DPD? 4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
Add Reply
donald willis
2017-08-04 01:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"

"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
numbering of depository floors:

Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."

Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)

The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.

Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
collusion. Bowles again nails Henslee and, collaterally, Sawyer:
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)

Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).

Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.

Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 21:58:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
How about this:
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor. The acoustical evidence
shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
donald willis
2017-08-06 00:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!

dcw

The acoustical evidence
Post by Anthony Marsh
shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist. Never rely on witnesses.
What is the point of your confusion?
Post by donald willis
dcw
The acoustical evidence
Post by Anthony Marsh
shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
donald willis
2017-08-07 22:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 02:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
donald willis
2017-08-09 16:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-10 12:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2017-08-10 22:01:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-11 14:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.

Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.

The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
donald willis
2017-08-12 00:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy
I noticed that, too, after I saw Posner's "documentary" re-creation of the wounds.

and Connally.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor.
Yes, I see a very large moe for the 3rd shot. Not so large for the first, and it includes the 5th & 7th floors.


They did not claim that the shot came from
Post by Anthony Marsh
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses.
Yes, like Fischer, Edwards, Couch (well, he was not at all sure), and I'd add Brennan & Jackson, who both said the sniper's window was wide open, which if you're talking about the east end of the building means 5th floor....

NOT SCIENCE,

But SCIENCE allowed it, if it didn't specify.

Same
Post by Anthony Marsh
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
Sorry, Posner's cones' overlap does not quite include the roof.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 03:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy
I noticed that, too, after I saw Posner's "documentary" re-creation of the wounds.
and Connally.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor.
Yes, I see a very large moe for the 3rd shot. Not so large for the first, and it includes the 5th & 7th floors.
So? The fact remains that you were using selction bias when you said
fifth floor.
Post by donald willis
They did not claim that the shot came from
Post by Anthony Marsh
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses.
Yes, like Fischer, Edwards, Couch (well, he was not at all sure), and I'd add Brennan & Jackson, who both said the sniper's window was wide open, which if you're talking about the east end of the building means 5th floor....
Illogic. The premise is flawed. You don't have to accept their saying
the window was wide open.
Post by donald willis
NOT SCIENCE,
But SCIENCE allowed it, if it didn't specify.
Huh? I was originally talking about the acoustical science. It narrows
it down to the sixth floor.
Post by donald willis
Same
Post by Anthony Marsh
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
Sorry, Posner's cones' overlap does not quite include the roof.
I don't care about the overlap. The margin of error includes the roof.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2017-08-13 22:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy
I noticed that, too, after I saw Posner's "documentary" re-creation of the wounds.
and Connally.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor.
Yes, I see a very large moe for the 3rd shot. Not so large for the first, and it includes the 5th & 7th floors.
So? The fact remains that you were using selction bias when you said
fifth floor.
Post by donald willis
They did not claim that the shot came from
Post by Anthony Marsh
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses.
Yes, like Fischer, Edwards, Couch (well, he was not at all sure), and I'd add Brennan & Jackson, who both said the sniper's window was wide open, which if you're talking about the east end of the building means 5th floor....
Illogic. The premise is flawed. You don't have to accept their saying
the window was wide open.
I'm afraid that, in the case of Ronald Fischer, at least, you DO have to
accept his saying wide open--he testified that he could not have seen so
much of the suspect if the window were not wide open. And Brennan
explicitly used the wide open, east-end windows on the fifth floor to show
how wide the shooter's window was open! Oh, well--stay in denial....
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
NOT SCIENCE,
But SCIENCE allowed it, if it didn't specify.
Huh? I was originally talking about the acoustical science. It narrows
it down to the sixth floor.
Post by donald willis
Same
Post by Anthony Marsh
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
Sorry, Posner's cones' overlap does not quite include the roof.
I don't care about the overlap. The margin of error includes the roof.
ya lost me....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy
I noticed that, too, after I saw Posner's "documentary" re-creation of the wounds.
and Connally.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor.
Yes, I see a very large moe for the 3rd shot. Not so large for the first, and it includes the 5th & 7th floors.
So? The fact remains that you were using selction bias when you said
fifth floor.
Post by donald willis
They did not claim that the shot came from
Post by Anthony Marsh
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses.
Yes, like Fischer, Edwards, Couch (well, he was not at all sure), and I'd add Brennan & Jackson, who both said the sniper's window was wide open, which if you're talking about the east end of the building means 5th floor....
Illogic. The premise is flawed. You don't have to accept their saying
the window was wide open.
I'm afraid that, in the case of Ronald Fischer, at least, you DO have to
accept his saying wide open--he testified that he could not have seen so
much of the suspect if the window were not wide open. And Brennan
explicitly used the wide open, east-end windows on the fifth floor to show
how wide the shooter's window was open! Oh, well--stay in denial....
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
NOT SCIENCE,
But SCIENCE allowed it, if it didn't specify.
Huh? I was originally talking about the acoustical science. It narrows
it down to the sixth floor.
Post by donald willis
Same
Post by Anthony Marsh
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
Sorry, Posner's cones' overlap does not quite include the roof.
I don't care about the overlap. The margin of error includes the roof.
ya lost me....
dcw
The bigger circle includes the roof.
So you could claim the shot came from the roof.
donald willis
2017-08-13 13:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 16:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
It shows that the bullet disintegrated and left a trail of fragments
which is not compatible with either the WC entrance or the HSCA
entrance, as I diagrammed on the X-ray:

Loading Image...
donald willis
2017-08-15 00:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
It shows that the bullet disintegrated and left a trail of fragments
which is not compatible with either the WC entrance or the HSCA
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
I guess I can't read X-rays or X-ray diagrams. Which is HSCA, which WC?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-15 16:00:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
It shows that the bullet disintegrated and left a trail of fragments
which is not compatible with either the WC entrance or the HSCA
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
I guess I can't read X-rays or X-ray diagrams. Which is HSCA, which WC?
I did it as an RGB.
The fragments are from the autopsy X-ray in blue superimposed on the
HSCA wound diagram (revised) in red. I drew in the line showing how the
fragments are dispersed.

donald willis
2017-08-15 00:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
It shows that the bullet disintegrated and left a trail of fragments
which is not compatible with either the WC entrance or the HSCA
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
As I understand the train of events, the tracheotomy on JFK played hob (if
I may be technical) with the throat wound, so that neither the size nor
the angle of the entrance of the bullet could be determined from it. But
it would seem that the back (sometimes called the neck!) wound (if it was
from the same bullet) could aid in determining the angle of the throat
wound, and from there the trajectory of the bullet, whether it came from
the front, the back, or the side. even whether it was an entrance or an
exit wound eh? Or is there some disagreement on all these issues among
the medicos?

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-15 15:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
It shows that the bullet disintegrated and left a trail of fragments
which is not compatible with either the WC entrance or the HSCA
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
As I understand the train of events, the tracheotomy on JFK played hob (if
I may be technical) with the throat wound, so that neither the size nor
the angle of the entrance of the bullet could be determined from it. But
Something like that.
But it was not an entrance wound. Where would the bullet go?
Do you want to be a Perryite and agree with Perry's theory?
Post by donald willis
it would seem that the back (sometimes called the neck!) wound (if it was
Falsely called the neck by NcAdams and the cover-up.
Post by donald willis
from the same bullet) could aid in determining the angle of the throat
wound, and from there the trajectory of the bullet, whether it came from
No, that's silly. You think the bullet went through the windshield?
Or was fired from the overpass? Or a helicopter?
Post by donald willis
the front, the back, or the side. even whether it was an entrance or an
exit wound eh? Or is there some disagreement on all these issues among
the medicos?
There is disagreement about everything.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 16:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Ah! a convert!
No, a realist.
Again, may I say, "Ah! a convert!" You're saying, eh?, that shots were
really fired from the fifth floor....
dcw
No. I am saying that some people claimed that, but the science proves
the shots came from the sixth floor.
25 years ago, science claimed the shots came from the fifth or sixth
floor. (See the "cone" drawing at the back of "Case Closed".) So,
science has changed? And it will change again....
No.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Oh, yes.
Again, NO. You weren't researching this case 25 years ago. I know what
errors were made and wrote about them at the time. I pointed out the
errors to Posner and pointed out that they fudged the wound entries and
positions of Kennedy and Connally.
Even then it is only the large margin of error which would allow the shot
to come from the fifth floor. They did not claim that the shot came from
the fifth floor. No one did, except flakey witnesses. NOT SCIENCE, Same
problem with the HSCA, FBI, WC and several other reenactments. The only
way to produce that line is to LIE about JFK's wound and claim it hit his
neck, when we can NOW see for ourselves that it hit his upper back just
above T-1.
The seventh floor and the roof are also within that margin of error. So
why don't you claim that SCIENCE proves that the shot came from the roof?
Because it doesn't fit into your pet theory.
What does SCIENCE say about the trajectory of the Grassy Knoll shot?
Cones, dotted lines, etc.? How was this determined?
Loading Image...

W&A kept moving the shooter until they found the best fit, about 9 feet
west of the corner of the fence.

Bayes' Theorem.
donald willis
2017-08-06 00:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Yes, Prof. Marsh! You got it!

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Yes, Prof. Marsh! You got it!
I made a typo. I left out the word NO.
No shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Do you really have a theory that shots were fired from the FIFTH floor?
Which one fired them? Jarman or Williams?
Is that why Euins said the shooter was black?
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2017-08-07 22:41:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Yes, Prof. Marsh! You got it!
I made a typo. I left out the word NO.
Or was it a Freudian or Jungian slip???
Post by Anthony Marsh
No shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Do you really have a theory that shots were fired from the FIFTH floor?
Well, they had Henslee cover up the name of the cop who sent the "second
window" transmission so that he did not have to testify. And they had
Henslee cover up the "third floor" transmission with "fifth floor".

"Second window", in context, can only refer to the fifth floor. (Shots
from the "second window from the end, upper right hand corner of the
building as you're facing it on Elm"....

"Third floor" CAN'T refer to the sixth floor, but it could refer to the
third floor *down*. Or... the FIFTH floor.

Henslee's chicanery is a red light here
Post by Anthony Marsh
Which one fired them? Jarman or Williams?
Is that why Euins said the shooter was black?
We've danced this dance before. Euins apparently saw one black man up
there near where the shooter was and pegged him, erroneously, as the
shooter.


dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 03:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor. The acoustical evidence
shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
Again, some witnesses claim that shots were fired from the fifth floor,
but the scientific evidence shows that no shots were fired from the
fifth floor.
donald willis
2017-08-06 22:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
Who is making up this phony questioning?
Lawyer: You really don't know the difference between the fifth floor and
the fifth floor, do you?
Again, shots were fired from the fifth floor.
Again, thank you for perpetuating this blasphemous calumny!

The acoustical evidence
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
Again, some witnesses claim that shots were fired from the fifth floor,
but the scientific evidence shows that no shots were fired from the
fifth floor.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 21:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
No shots were fired from the fifth floor. It doesn't matter what
witnesses said. They were confused.
The scientific evidence shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
donald willis
2017-08-06 00:07:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
No shots were fired from the fifth floor. It doesn't matter what
witnesses said. They were confused.
The scientific evidence shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
Yesterday's "scientific evidence" is discredited today. Today's
"scientific evidence" will be discredited tomorrow.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-06 22:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
No shots were fired from the fifth floor. It doesn't matter what
witnesses said. They were confused.
The scientific evidence shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
Yesterday's "scientific evidence" is discredited today. Today's
"scientific evidence" will be discredited tomorrow.
dcw
FALSE
donald willis
2017-08-06 00:08:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
4) Not your grandmother's "sixth floor"
"We have found empty rifle hulls on the fifth floor...." Inspector Sawyer,
1:12pm [Sawyer Exh B p400]) This is perhaps Henslee's most ingenious
"correction" of the radio logs. There was much confusion that day re the
Counsel: "You signed an affidavit... where you stated that you saw a man
at the window on the fifth floor...."
Robert Edwards: "It was the sixth floor, though....I went with [the FBI]
and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor."
(v6p204)
The fifth-for-sixth confusion is explicit in Edwards' testimony; it's
implicit in Henslee's rendition of Sawyer's radio call. All devotees of
depository lore automatically read "sixth" for "fifth" in such cases.
Sawyer, in his testimony, endorses Henslee's "correction" when he reads a
print-out of the transcription: "We have found empty rifle hulls on the
fifth floor...." (v6) Cut-and-dried--sender and transcriber are in
perfect agreement.
Ultimately, Sawyer and Henslee's touching unanimity comes to seem more like
"9 [Sawyer] : "on the third floor of this book company down here, we found
empty rifle hulls....1:12pm." (Bowles transcription, CE 705 p78)
Is there, maybe, an impartial third party who can corroborate Bowles?
Yes, as it happens. there are actually a third and a foourth. "On the
third floor of this book company... we found empty rifle hulls..." (FBI
transcription, CE 1974 p176) And Richard Trask, in "Pictures of the
Pain": "Inspector J.H. Sawyer... called in to radio dispatch...: 'On the
third [sic] floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls'...." (p523) This from Trask's own transcription (pp557-8).
Bowles, the FBI, and Trask, then, rectify Sawyer, who actually radioed
"third floor", not "fifth". In Henslee's transcription, the
"fifth-for-sixth" confusion tacitly redirects the discovery of the hulls
to the sixth floor. And if Sawyer made a simple transmitting error,
colluding with Henslee was not the way to put things right.
Furthermore, "third floor" may not have been an error. Patrolman Hill's
"second window" and Inspector Sawyer's "third floor" can be seen to
intersect. The only open "second window" in the depository's "upper right
hand corner", at 12:30pm, on November 22nd, was on the "third floor" *from
the top of the building*, or the fifth floor. Subsequent photographic and
witness testimony, however, seemed to rule out any hint of suspicious
activity on that floor or at that window.
dcw
No shots were fired from the fifth floor. It doesn't matter what
witnesses said. They were confused.
The scientific evidence shows that shots were fired from the sixth floor.
I believe I answered the same fooferah on Part V
Loading...