Discussion:
WC- 46% Further Time Between 2nd to 3rd Shots
Add Reply
FSHG
2015-03-06 00:45:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.

It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.

BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.


The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.





http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece

- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"

A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.

(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)

(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)

Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
bigdog
2015-03-06 15:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
There is no consensus among WC defenders as to when the first shot was
fired. There is no defintive evidence to establish that.
Robert Harris
2015-03-06 15:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Brace yourself; the nutcases are going to accuse you of secretly being
me:-)

Everything you say is correct. It is also important, that every surviving
passenger in the limousine, only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to
the very end, or to events that we can easily confirm, happened after the
shot at 223.

Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".

Kellerman heard one noise and then a "flurry" of "at least" two closely
bunched shots at the end.

Jackie heard one noise and then heard John Connally screaming, which
happened circa 240, and then two more shots.

Nellie heard one shot and then turned to look back at JFK, at about
frame 258. It was after that, that she heard two more shots.

John Connally only remembered hearing two shots. He "felt" the second
one at 223, but never heard it. Neither did anyone else.

It is also enlightening that among the law enforcement people - police,
Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies and even highway patrol NOT ONE of
them said the early shots were closer than the final ones.





Robert Harris
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Jean Davison
2015-03-07 01:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
It's often overlooked that the actual majority of the witnesses
didn't say anything at all about the shot spacing. In Six Seconds in
Dallas Josiah Thompson estimated that over 400 people had been present in
Dealey Plaza. Most didn't give statements to the police. Of the 190 who
did, only 65 commented on the spacing of the shots. By Thompson's count 40
witnesses said the 2nd and 3rd shots were closer together. I don't think
that means much, especially since the photos tell a different story.
Post by FSHG
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
Those Z frames were chosen for a reason. Starting around Z-165,
Connally turns his head abruptly to his right, just as he said he did
after hearing a shot. The Connallys were among those who said the first
two shots were closer together, and the Z film supports that version, imo.



In the Willis photo taken at Z202 the SS men in the followup car don't
seem to be reacting yet.

Loading Image...

IMO, many of them didn't hear the first shot, probably because of the
crowd noise and the motorcycles. For instance, Landis and Hill reported
hearing only two shots. Agent Ready on the right running board said he
reacted to the "first" shot by immediately turning to look to the right
rear. We don't see him doing that or any of the other agents reacting
until the Altgens photo c.Z255:

Loading Image...

Even after two shots, many spectators are still smiling and applauding.
Post by FSHG
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
That's not the same as hearing gunfire unexpectedly in a noisy
environment.
Post by FSHG
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Jean
Robert Harris
2015-03-07 20:30:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jean Davison
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
It's often overlooked that the actual majority of the witnesses
didn't say anything at all about the shot spacing. In Six Seconds in
Dallas Josiah Thompson estimated that over 400 people had been present
in Dealey Plaza. Most didn't give statements to the police. Of the 190
who did, only 65 commented on the spacing of the shots. By Thompson's
count 40 witnesses said the 2nd and 3rd shots were closer together. I
don't think that means much, especially since the photos tell a
different story.
YES! The photos and films prove that at least two and probably three
shots were fired, prior to frame 285. But the witnesses only heard one
of them, and that one was not nearly as loud as shots at the end, which
provoked visible, dramatic startle reactions. This is from my previous
post in this thread:

It is also important, that every surviving passenger in the limousine,
only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to the very end, or to events
that we can easily confirm, happened after the shot at 223.

Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".

Kellerman heard one noise and then a "flurry" of "at least" two closely
bunched shots at the end.

Jackie heard one noise and then heard John Connally screaming, which
happened circa 240, and then two more shots.

Nellie heard one shot and then turned to look back at JFK, at about
frame 258. It was after that, that she heard two more shots.

John Connally only remembered hearing two shots. He "felt" the second
one at 223, but never heard it. Neither did anyone else.

It is also enlightening that among the law enforcement people - police,
Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies and even highway patrol NOT ONE of
them said the early shots were closer than the final ones.

http://youtu.be/cvqCtaBkyyE



Robert Harris
BOZ
2015-03-07 22:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by Jean Davison
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
It's often overlooked that the actual majority of the witnesses
didn't say anything at all about the shot spacing. In Six Seconds in
Dallas Josiah Thompson estimated that over 400 people had been present
in Dealey Plaza. Most didn't give statements to the police. Of the 190
who did, only 65 commented on the spacing of the shots. By Thompson's
count 40 witnesses said the 2nd and 3rd shots were closer together. I
don't think that means much, especially since the photos tell a
different story.
YES! The photos and films prove that at least two and probably three
shots were fired, prior to frame 285. But the witnesses only heard one
of them, and that one was not nearly as loud as shots at the end, which
provoked visible, dramatic startle reactions. This is from my previous
It is also important, that every surviving passenger in the limousine,
only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to the very end, or to events
that we can easily confirm, happened after the shot at 223.
Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".
Kellerman heard one noise and then a "flurry" of "at least" two closely
bunched shots at the end.
Jackie heard one noise and then heard John Connally screaming, which
happened circa 240, and then two more shots.
Nellie heard one shot and then turned to look back at JFK, at about
frame 258. It was after that, that she heard two more shots.
John Connally only remembered hearing two shots. He "felt" the second
one at 223, but never heard it. Neither did anyone else.
It is also enlightening that among the law enforcement people - police,
Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies and even highway patrol NOT ONE of
them said the early shots were closer than the final ones.
http://youtu.be/cvqCtaBkyyE
Robert Harris
I'll say something about your videos. You have three things right. The
date , the location,and the murder victim. Congratulations!
bigdog
2015-03-09 15:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by Jean Davison
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
It's often overlooked that the actual majority of the witnesses
didn't say anything at all about the shot spacing. In Six Seconds in
Dallas Josiah Thompson estimated that over 400 people had been present
in Dealey Plaza. Most didn't give statements to the police. Of the 190
who did, only 65 commented on the spacing of the shots. By Thompson's
count 40 witnesses said the 2nd and 3rd shots were closer together. I
don't think that means much, especially since the photos tell a
different story.
YES! The photos and films prove that at least two and probably three
shots were fired, prior to frame 285. But the witnesses only heard one
of them, and that one was not nearly as loud as shots at the end, which
provoked visible, dramatic startle reactions. This is from my previous
It is also important, that every surviving passenger in the limousine,
only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to the very end, or to events
that we can easily confirm, happened after the shot at 223.
Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".
Kellerman heard one noise and then a "flurry" of "at least" two closely
bunched shots at the end.
Jackie heard one noise and then heard John Connally screaming, which
happened circa 240, and then two more shots.
Nellie heard one shot and then turned to look back at JFK, at about
frame 258. It was after that, that she heard two more shots.
John Connally only remembered hearing two shots. He "felt" the second
one at 223, but never heard it. Neither did anyone else.
It is also enlightening that among the law enforcement people - police,
Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies and even highway patrol NOT ONE of
them said the early shots were closer than the final ones.
http://youtu.be/cvqCtaBkyyE
Is Harris eligible for a Harris Award?
Jason Burke
2015-03-10 00:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Robert Harris
Post by Jean Davison
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
It's often overlooked that the actual majority of the witnesses
didn't say anything at all about the shot spacing. In Six Seconds in
Dallas Josiah Thompson estimated that over 400 people had been present
in Dealey Plaza. Most didn't give statements to the police. Of the 190
who did, only 65 commented on the spacing of the shots. By Thompson's
count 40 witnesses said the 2nd and 3rd shots were closer together. I
don't think that means much, especially since the photos tell a
different story.
YES! The photos and films prove that at least two and probably three
shots were fired, prior to frame 285. But the witnesses only heard one
of them, and that one was not nearly as loud as shots at the end, which
provoked visible, dramatic startle reactions. This is from my previous
It is also important, that every surviving passenger in the limousine,
only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to the very end, or to events
that we can easily confirm, happened after the shot at 223.
Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".
Kellerman heard one noise and then a "flurry" of "at least" two closely
bunched shots at the end.
Jackie heard one noise and then heard John Connally screaming, which
happened circa 240, and then two more shots.
Nellie heard one shot and then turned to look back at JFK, at about
frame 258. It was after that, that she heard two more shots.
John Connally only remembered hearing two shots. He "felt" the second
one at 223, but never heard it. Neither did anyone else.
It is also enlightening that among the law enforcement people - police,
Secret Service, Sheriff's deputies and even highway patrol NOT ONE of
them said the early shots were closer than the final ones.
http://youtu.be/cvqCtaBkyyE
Is Harris eligible for a Harris Award?
I thought he, was ineligible, you know, for having won it so many, times.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-07 16:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
I think most people wouldn't care about 46%.
And gas can shoot up that much in price.
Post by FSHG
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
I reject the construction of your argument. WHo said 46%?
Bud
2015-03-08 17:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...

Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.

Why isn`t there unanimity?

You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-09 03:09:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
Because they are WC defenders.
Post by Bud
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
Well, you got us there. As far as I know no witnesses were expecting the
shots and timed them with a stop watch.
Man, you are so brilliant I hope you can melt all this damn snow.
Post by Bud
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
Bud
2015-03-10 00:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
Because they are WC defenders.
The witnesses are?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
Well, you got us there. As far as I know no witnesses were expecting the
shots and timed them with a stop watch.
Man, you are so brilliant I hope you can melt all this damn snow.
No, but I was responsible for you getting all that damn snow.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
cmikes
2015-03-10 15:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-11 02:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
BOZ
2015-03-11 23:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
Brennan said he saw a human from the waist up and Jean Hill's dog did not
have a rifle.
Bud
2015-03-12 01:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
I don`t understand why you think there are two camps of witnesses, yours
and ours.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
bigdog
2015-03-12 01:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
witness that says something you want to hear. In that case you'll put
complete faith in that person. WC defenders put their faith only in
witnesses who can be corroborated by physical evidence. Uncorroborated
witness accounts should be stamped with a great big MAYBE.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
IRONY ALERT!!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
Why don't you build your own strawman.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-13 00:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Post by bigdog
witness that says something you want to hear. In that case you'll put
complete faith in that person. WC defenders put their faith only in
witnesses who can be corroborated by physical evidence. Uncorroborated
witness accounts should be stamped with a great big MAYBE.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
IRONY ALERT!!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
Why don't you build your own strawman.
You used it all up. We now have a shortage. Want some snow?
bigdog
2015-03-13 21:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-14 15:07:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
bigdog
2015-03-14 18:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-16 13:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
bigdog
2015-03-16 22:59:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
As I said before, we don't need Brennan. We still have 52 pieces of
compelling evidence of Oswald's guilty without him. Relying on him would
mean the case against Oswald couldn't have been made without him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
I'll remember that if an when I ever lose an argument to you. Whether you
will admit it or not, you rely 100% on Connally's initial statement to
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-17 23:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
As I said before, we don't need Brennan. We still have 52 pieces of
compelling evidence of Oswald's guilty without him. Relying on him would
mean the case against Oswald couldn't have been made without him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
I'll remember that if an when I ever lose an argument to you. Whether you
will admit it or not, you rely 100% on Connally's initial statement to
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
bigdog
2015-03-18 21:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
As I said before, we don't need Brennan. We still have 52 pieces of
compelling evidence of Oswald's guilty without him. Relying on him would
mean the case against Oswald couldn't have been made without him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
I'll remember that if an when I ever lose an argument to you. Whether you
will admit it or not, you rely 100% on Connally's initial statement to
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-20 03:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
As I said before, we don't need Brennan. We still have 52 pieces of
compelling evidence of Oswald's guilty without him. Relying on him would
mean the case against Oswald couldn't have been made without him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
I'll remember that if an when I ever lose an argument to you. Whether you
will admit it or not, you rely 100% on Connally's initial statement to
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
bigdog
2015-03-21 01:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-22 01:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.

I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
Mark Florio
2015-03-22 18:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
More juvenile babble. Mark Florio.
bigdog
2015-03-23 02:12:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-24 02:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
bigdog
2015-03-24 15:37:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
Funny, I don't remember anyone calling you a Communist. I know I haven't.
How would I know if you were one? I don't suppose you could cite a post in
which somebody, anybody, called you a Communist. Oh, that's right. McAdams
won't allow you to do that.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-24 21:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
Funny, I don't remember anyone calling you a Communist. I know I haven't.
How would I know if you were one? I don't suppose you could cite a post in
which somebody, anybody, called you a Communist. Oh, that's right. McAdams
won't allow you to do that.
Of course you don't remember, because you can't even remember yesterday.
I didn't say YOU called me a Communist. You don't qualify as one of
McAdams minions, do you?

I could cite, but I'll let you Google it.

I would never even want to call anyone here a Communist. I would like to
call someone here a Nazi, but I wouldn't bother trying. All I can say is
there are some Nazis here. I called someone here an extreme rightwinger
and McAdams deleted my message to protect him.
bigdog
2015-03-25 14:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
Funny, I don't remember anyone calling you a Communist. I know I haven't.
How would I know if you were one? I don't suppose you could cite a post in
which somebody, anybody, called you a Communist. Oh, that's right. McAdams
won't allow you to do that.
Of course you don't remember, because you can't even remember yesterday.
I didn't say YOU called me a Communist. You don't qualify as one of
McAdams minions, do you?
You said someone called you a Communist and I said I didn't remember any
such thing and observed you wouldn't be able to cite an example of that.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I could cite, but I'll let you Google it.
Oh goodie. A new variation of an old dodge.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I would never even want to call anyone here a Communist. I would like to
call someone here a Nazi, but I wouldn't bother trying. All I can say is
there are some Nazis here. I called someone here an extreme rightwinger
and McAdams deleted my message to protect him.
So in short, the reason you can't back up the kooky things you claim is
because McAdams won't let you call others Nazis.
Mark Florio
2015-03-24 16:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
And allows you to call a person a Nazi. Grow up. Mark Florio.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-25 01:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
And allows you to call a person a Nazi. Grow up. Mark Florio.
No, I can not call you a Nazi. I just point out that there are Nazis
here. I am not allowed to name them.
Mark Florio
2015-03-26 00:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
And allows you to call a person a Nazi. Grow up. Mark Florio.
No, I can not call you a Nazi. I just point out that there are Nazis
here. I am not allowed to name them.
Ok, don't call them Nazis, but give us a list of names or alias names you
think are Nazis on here. Mark Florio.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-27 01:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
It would appear Tony has come up with a new dodge.
I've been saying it for 30 years.
McAdams just deleted one of my messages because I called one of his
minions an extreme rightwinger, but allows them to call me a Communist.
And allows you to call a person a Nazi. Grow up. Mark Florio.
No, I can not call you a Nazi. I just point out that there are Nazis
here. I am not allowed to name them.
Ok, don't call them Nazis, but give us a list of names or alias names you
think are Nazis on here. Mark Florio.
I am not allowed to name individuals. I am not allowed to point out
aliases.
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-23 17:39:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Florio
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
More hooey. Why would McAdams delete your post?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
More juvenile babble. Mark Florio.
Just facts.
bigdog
2015-03-23 01:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
He would only do that if you violated the forum's guidelines. Are you
saying you are unable to articulate a response without doing that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
What isn't true? You deny you rely solely on Connally's initial
recollection to establish that he turned left at the sound of the first
shot and saw JFK slumped but you can point to no other evidence that
indicates he did that. That means you are relying solely on Connally's
initials statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
There are no qualifiers. You have made that statement repeatedly over the
years. Anyone can discover that for themselves simply by searching for one
of the two phrases you have used:

"Never rely on a witness" or "Never rely on witnesses". You have used both
and either will produce numerous hits in which you have said exactly those
words. You really do hate it when your own words are used against you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
Then how do you suppose I could find all those hits in which you have used
the phrases I posted above? I'll provide just one example for each of
those two phrases.

First, "Never rely on a witness":

In the topic "Lee's alibi checked out." on 10/3/14 your entire response to
Don Willis was "Nonsense. Never rely on a witness."

Second "Never rely on witnesses":

In the topic "Questions" on 5/10/13 you made that statement in a response
to Chris. Later in that thread you replied to him "I don't rely on
witnesses."

I guess that was then. This is now.

There are lots more examples of each. Would you like me to post some more
or are these enough to jog your memory?
Anthony Marsh
2015-03-24 04:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
He would only do that if you violated the forum's guidelines. Are you
saying you are unable to articulate a response without doing that?
For people like you. I am running out of euphemisms and have to go to the
store tommorrow to buy more. No matter how slow McAdams is he eventually
figures out my swear words and marks them for future reference.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
What isn't true? You deny you rely solely on Connally's initial
recollection to establish that he turned left at the sound of the first
shot and saw JFK slumped but you can point to no other evidence that
indicates he did that. That means you are relying solely on Connally's
initials statement.
I do not rely on it and what you point out is not his initial
recollection. And don't try to use your X-ray vision to look through the
sign to see Connally.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
There are no qualifiers. You have made that statement repeatedly over the
years. Anyone can discover that for themselves simply by searching for one
I always use qualifiers and you always strip them out to change my
statement. That is the only trick you know.
Post by bigdog
"Never rely on a witness" or "Never rely on witnesses". You have used both
and either will produce numerous hits in which you have said exactly those
words. You really do hate it when your own words are used against you.
Numerous hits which you dare not quote.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
Then how do you suppose I could find all those hits in which you have used
the phrases I posted above? I'll provide just one example for each of
those two phrases.
You guess.
Post by bigdog
In the topic "Lee's alibi checked out." on 10/3/14 your entire response to
Don Willis was "Nonsense. Never rely on a witness."
In the topic "Questions" on 5/10/13 you made that statement in a response
to Chris. Later in that thread you replied to him "I don't rely on
witnesses."
I guess that was then. This is now.
There are lots more examples of each. Would you like me to post some more
or are these enough to jog your memory?
Make sure you snip out the context.
bigdog
2015-03-24 22:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
I guess you're a glutton for punishment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
So there we have it. If you don't need any corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement it means that despite what you have said in the past,
you are relying completely on a witness and accepting at face value
Connally's earliest statement to Agronsky. I suppose you can't see the
hypocrisy between that position and you admonition to "never rely on
witnesses" which you have repeated countless times to others. It is
actually good advice. Too bad you don't have the good sense to adhere to
it yourself.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Back to the one word responses you fall back on when you can't articulate
a reasoned one. No what? Do you mean no, you are not relying completely on
Connally's statement or no, you do have other evidence that indicates what
he said is true.
Again, I am not allowed to write the whole explanation because McAdams
would delete my post.
He would only do that if you violated the forum's guidelines. Are you
saying you are unable to articulate a response without doing that?
For people like you. I am running out of euphemisms and have to go to the
store tommorrow to buy more. No matter how slow McAdams is he eventually
figures out my swear words and marks them for future reference.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
I only need to go on record pointing out that you are saying something
that is not true.
What isn't true? You deny you rely solely on Connally's initial
recollection to establish that he turned left at the sound of the first
shot and saw JFK slumped but you can point to no other evidence that
indicates he did that. That means you are relying solely on Connally's
initials statement.
I do not rely on it and what you point out is not his initial
recollection. And don't try to use your X-ray vision to look through the
sign to see Connally.
If you don't rely solely on Connally's statement, what do you rely on to
tell you Connally turned left to see JFK slumped. It can't be the Z-film
since you have pointed out he was hidden from view when he did what you
claimed he did. So if it wasn't Connally's statement and it wasn't the
Z-film, what was it that convinced you that Connally turned to his left
and saw JFK was slumped?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
You really want to claim you have never told others on this forum to never
rely on a witness. How many examples of you saying that would you like me
Make sure you strip out the qualifiers. That's your best trick.
There are no qualifiers. You have made that statement repeatedly over the
years. Anyone can discover that for themselves simply by searching for one
I always use qualifiers and you always strip them out to change my
statement. That is the only trick you know.
Is that a fact? Your ENTIRE response to Don Willis on 10/03/2014 was
"Nonsense. Never rely on a witness.". Where is the qualifier in that
statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
"Never rely on a witness" or "Never rely on witnesses". You have used both
and either will produce numerous hits in which you have said exactly those
words. You really do hate it when your own words are used against you.
Numerous hits which you dare not quote.
I quote two. How many more would you like? How badly do you want me to
embarass you?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
to produce? Unlike you, when I claim someone has said something, I can
back it up by going through the archives and producing cites. Finding
examples of this would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
You don't know how to use the archives. You can't even Google.
Then how do you suppose I could find all those hits in which you have used
the phrases I posted above? I'll provide just one example for each of
those two phrases.
You guess.
Of course anyone can make the same searches I just did and see which one
of us is telling the truth.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
In the topic "Lee's alibi checked out." on 10/3/14 your entire response to
Don Willis was "Nonsense. Never rely on a witness."
In the topic "Questions" on 5/10/13 you made that statement in a response
to Chris. Later in that thread you replied to him "I don't rely on
witnesses."
I guess that was then. This is now.
There are lots more examples of each. Would you like me to post some more
or are these enough to jog your memory?
Make sure you snip out the context.
So you do admit you have made the statement, "Never rely on a witness" and
"Never rely on witnesses" on numerous occasions. Your problem, Tony, is
that you are suggesting you made qualifies and that the context matters.
The problem is the word "never" is unqualifed. I think everyone knows what
the word "never" means. Apparently, when you use it, you only mean other
people should never rely on witnesses. You on the other hand don't apply
that same rule to your own arguments.

Tony, I warned you not to go down this road. I real don't enjoy
embarrassing you like this.

OK, so I just lied.
Mark Florio
2015-03-21 15:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
As said before, you confirm that you rely on Brennan. Curry did not.
As I said before, we don't need Brennan. We still have 52 pieces of
compelling evidence of Oswald's guilty without him. Relying on him would
mean the case against Oswald couldn't have been made without him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
No, stop putting words in my mouth when you lose an argument.
I'll remember that if an when I ever lose an argument to you. Whether you
will admit it or not, you rely 100% on Connally's initial statement to
I didn't say it was his initial statement and you refused to read my
article.
You didn't have to say it was his initial statement because it was his
initial statement and it is the only statement he ever gave in which he
said he turned left instead of right and the only statement in which he
said he saw JFK was slumped on his initial turn. Then you tried to give
that statement credence by citing Elizabeth Loftus's study which indicated
the earliest statements are more often than not the most accurate ones.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
establish your belief that he turned to his LEFT after hearing the first
shot and saw JFK was slumped. There isn't another piece of evidence that
indicates he did that. Just his initial statement which you accept as
gospel.
You mean you can't see him through the sign with your X-ray eyes?
Do you really want me to open up another can of whoopass by going down
this road? JBC was hidden by the sign for about 3/4 of a second and we are
supposed to believe he did all that you claimed he did in that one brief
moment. But even if that was remotely possible, you can't see through the
Yes.
Post by bigdog
sign either so you have absolutely no corroborating evidence for
Connally's statement that he turned to his left and saw JFK was slumped.
I don't need any.
Post by bigdog
So in fact your belief he did that is based entirely on that one interview
he gave Agronsky. You are relying completely on Connally's initial account
because there is absolule no other evidence that indicates he did that.
No.
Post by bigdog
Whether you admit it or not, you are relying on a witness even though you
have admonished others countless times to never rely on a witness.
I never said that.
And you call yourself a researcher. Mark Florio.
claviger
2015-03-16 22:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense. Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle. Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Wise up. No matter who fired the rifle, the shells corroborate Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor corner window as the sniper's nest because
he couldn't have knowm those shells were there. The fact those shells were
fired by the rifle which was owned by the guy who Brennan idenitified
gives further credence to his testimony. Yes it's possible Brennan could
have identified the wrong man and yes it's possible somebody else someone
else could have fired the rifle but if you put those two together it would
be quite a coincidence that the guy Brennan misidentified was also the guy
who owned the rifle that somebody else fired. This illustrates what I have
said often. It's not hard to attack any one piece of evidence in isolation
but when you put the pieces together, each piece reenforces the others so
that the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its parts. There is
only one explanation that fits all the evidence. Oswald did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
So your answer is you rely on the earliest statements by witnesses even if
there is nothing to corroborate the earliest statement. Now I understand.
Well said.
Bud
2015-03-14 20:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
WC defenders put their faith in hard evidence, not eye and ear witness
accounts. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in remembering what they
Wrong. They rely on Brennan to put Oswald in the window.
Curry said they could never put Oswalw in the window.
We rely on Brennan to put the shooter in that window and that was
corroborated by the finding of the shells at that window. Those shells
were matched to a rifle owned by Oswald. That gives further credence to
Nonsense.
No, really, you should listen to bigdog, this is actually how crimes are
solved in the real world.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Those shells could have been left there by someone else
shooting Oswald's rifle.
Hey look, a conspiracy hobbyist can imagine some alternative to what the
evidence strongly indicates. Fifty years of imagination with nothing to
show for it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Was Joseph Materazzo guilty of murder because
his daughter was shot with his revolver? Grow up.
Post by bigdog
Brennan's ID of Oswald. The case against Oswald could easily be made even
without Brennan's ID. That was just icing on the cake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
saw and heard. You know that too and have often said never rely on
witnesses. Then of course you'll break your own rule when you find a
Never. I never RELY on any witness. I look for clues.
Never? Ridiculous. You relied 100% on Connally's initial account of the
shooting given to Martin Agronsky in which he claimed he turned to his
LEFT upon hearing the first shot and saw JFK was slumped. There is not
another piece of evidence which supports that statement yet you accept it
as gospel. In fact, the Z-film not only doesn't support that statement, it
refutes it. Do you really want to go down that road again given how badly
you got hammered last time we discussed it? You should amend your
statement to say you ALMOST NEVER rely on witnesses.
No.
I said listen to Loftus and look for the earliest statement. She never
says ignore all witnesses.
All evidence needs to be weighed correctly. If everyone could do it
there would be no conspiracy hobbyists.
cmikes
2015-03-12 01:48:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses have.
Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until they
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none of
them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending on what
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty assassins all
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds heard
shots from multiple directions?
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
I'm going to agree with you to a point, Tony. I don't believe either side
of the case should depend on eye witnesses since witnesses are notoriously
unreliable. The studies showing how unreliable eye witness testimony is
have been linked to ad nauseam in this very group. That's why all the
physical evidence that shows that Oswald acted alone is so convincing.

But I also recognize that there is a difference between eye witness
testimony that supports and adds to the physical evidence and witness
testimony that conflicts with the authenticated physical evidence. For
instance, Brennan's testimony that he observed Lee Oswald firing the rifle
is supported by the physical evidence that it was LHO's rifle that he
purchased under a false name with his fingerprints and palm print on it,
that LHO was observed carrying a package that the rifle could fit in, and
that LHO was the only employee in the building at the time of the
assassination to flee the scene and subsequently murder a police officer.
t***@cox.net
2015-03-12 21:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following
paragrap=
hs
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized,
u=
ntil
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second
and =
third
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and
seco=
nd
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed
46% further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he
has=
also
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even
al=
so
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that
Dulles stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along
a very significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who
recalled he=
aring
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd
sh=
ots
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and
2=
nd
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
shots they could hear.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-
ca=
pturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at
Zap-16=
0,
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant
majori=
ty of
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory
places =
its
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret
Service Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing
weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a
gal=
lon
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain
t=
hat
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking
o=
ne
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the
seco=
nd.
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed
in =
a
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there
is =
a
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound,
t=
hat
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a
lot more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the
brain to process and make sense of. This might have given the
impression of a shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
=20
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the=20
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses
have. Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the=20
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
=20
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until
the=
y
Post by cmikes
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
=20
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
=20
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none
of them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending
on w=
hat
Post by cmikes
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty
assassins =
all
Post by cmikes
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds
heard shots from multiple directions?
=20
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
=20
I'm going to agree with you to a point, Tony. I don't believe either
side of the case should depend on eye witnesses since witnesses are
notoriously unreliable. The studies showing how unreliable eye witness
testimony is have been linked to ad nauseam in this very group. That's
why all the physical evidence that shows that Oswald acted alone is so
convincing.
But I also recognize that there is a difference between eye witness
testimony that supports and adds to the physical evidence and witness
testimony that conflicts with the authenticated physical evidence. For
instance, Brennan's testimony that he observed Lee Oswald firing the
rifle is supported by the physical evidence that it was LHO's rifle that
he purchased under a false name with his fingerprints and palm print on
it, that LHO was observed carrying a package that the rifle could fit in,
and that LHO was the only employee in the building at the time of the
assassination to flee the scene and subsequently murder a police officer.
===========================================================================
======YOU JUST QUOTED SOME UNTRUE FACTS BECAUSE YOU GOT THEM SECOND/THIRD
HAND; I SUGGEST YOU READ THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY FROM THE
COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/
===========================================================================
=====
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
Jason Burke
2015-03-13 00:41:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t***@cox.net
Post by FSHG
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following
paragrap=
hs
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized,
u=
ntil
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second
and =
third
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and
seco=
nd
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed
46% further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he
has=
also
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even
al=
so
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that
Dulles stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along
a very significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who
recalled he=
aring
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd
sh=
ots
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and
2=
nd
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/3DVGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/3DVfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-
ca=
pturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at
Zap-16=
0,
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant
majori=
ty of
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory
places =
its
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret
Service Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing
weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a
gal=
lon
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain
t=
hat
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking
o=
ne
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the
seco=
nd.
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed
in =
a
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there
is =
a
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound,
t=
hat
Post by cmikes
Post by Bud
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a
lot more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the
brain to process and make sense of. This might have given the
impression of a shorter amount of time.
One thing I don't understand is the conspiracy theorist belief that all
=20
One thing I don't understand is how the WC defenders can attack the=20
conspiracy witnesses for having the same flaws that their witnesses
have. Jean Hill sees a white dog in the back seat of the limo.
Brennan says he saw the shooter from the waist up. Euins says the=20
shooter was black. Zapruder said the shooter was behind him.
=20
Post by cmikes
eye and ear witnesses have completely perfect eidetic memory, until
the=
y
Post by cmikes
don't. The question I find interesting is if these ear witnesses are
=20
You have a perfectly lucid mind until you don't.
=20
Post by cmikes
capable of judging the shot timing so expertly, why did almost none
of them hear shots from two or more directions? After all, depending
on w=
hat
Post by cmikes
theory the conspiracist is pushing, there were two to twenty
assassins =
all
Post by cmikes
blazing away at JFK, but only a couple of people out of hundreds
heard shots from multiple directions?
=20
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you say thousands?
=20
I'm going to agree with you to a point, Tony. I don't believe either
side of the case should depend on eye witnesses since witnesses are
notoriously unreliable. The studies showing how unreliable eye witness
testimony is have been linked to ad nauseam in this very group. That's
why all the physical evidence that shows that Oswald acted alone is so
convincing.
But I also recognize that there is a difference between eye witness
testimony that supports and adds to the physical evidence and witness
testimony that conflicts with the authenticated physical evidence. For
instance, Brennan's testimony that he observed Lee Oswald firing the
rifle is supported by the physical evidence that it was LHO's rifle that
he purchased under a false name with his fingerprints and palm print on
it, that LHO was observed carrying a package that the rifle could fit in,
and that LHO was the only employee in the building at the time of the
assassination to flee the scene and subsequently murder a police officer.
===========================================================================
======YOU JUST QUOTED SOME UNTRUE FACTS BECAUSE YOU GOT THEM SECOND/THIRD
HAND; I SUGGEST YOU READ THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY FROM THE
COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES SEE>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/
===========================================================================
=====
And yes! They're all online! And searchable!
OHLeeRedux
2015-03-13 00:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Everything you say is correct. It is also important, that every surviving
passenger in the limousine, only reported hearing ONE gunshot, prior to
the very end, or to events that we can easily confirm, happened after the
shot at 223.

Greer heard one "noise" and then shots at the end, fired almost
"simultaneously".


Read the testimony Robert.

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how
much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being
similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second
noise?
Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or
four seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to
estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time
of the third noise?
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the
other, but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between
the two. I couldn't really say.


Greer did in fact hear the first shot, and, although he says the last two
shots "seemed" to be simultaneous , he immediately goes on to say he
doesn't remember how many seconds were between the two. Simultaneous shots
do not have seconds between them.
claviger
2015-03-10 19:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Things to consider...
Seconds are very small increments in time, and you are on talking one
and a portion of one difference between the first spacing and the second.
Why isn`t there unanimity?
You are talking about perceptions. These can possibly be skewed in a
variety of ways. One, if there is a loud noise there is no reason to
expect another so no reason for the mind to track time. Once there is a
second one, the mind might be more aware of waiting for more. Also
possible is that since we rely a lot more on what we see than sound, that
the unfolding of visual events skewed sound estimates. There was a lot
more going on after the second shot than prior, more for the brain to
process and make sense of. This might have given the impression of a
shorter amount of time.
Excellent points!
FSHG
2015-05-07 02:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
first two shots:

Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood



DP witnesses who heard more than 3 shots:

Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell



Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
location that was not the Elm-Houston intersection:

Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
FSHG
2015-07-20 16:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
ADDITIONALLY :

There are a very small number of the above documented Dealey Plaza
witnesses who have changed the timing sequence of the shots they
remembered hearing/shots they could hear:

Brandt
Euins
Fischer
Shelton
FSHG
2016-07-30 18:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
There are a very small number of the above documented Dealey Plaza
witnesses who have changed the timing sequence of the shots they
Brandt
Euins
Fischer
Shelton
"I heard one shot, and then a pause, and then this repetition, two shots
right behind the other, and I thought it was backfire from a car and I
said, 'Someone shot the president.'"

(Dealey Plaza witness Edward Shields in his Warren Commission testimony,
07H394)
FSHG
2015-09-29 23:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
The total is 140 Dealey Plaza witnesses whose stated observations do not
agree with the current commission-supporters shots sequence, shots
sources, nor the number of shots they could hear.

Yes, yes, of course some witnesses are wrong sometimes, butcha' know
what?: some witnesses are also correct.
FSHG
2015-09-30 21:48:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
The combined total is 140 Dealey Plaza witnesses (a vast majority of over
75% of the named witnesses) whose stated observations do not agree with
the warren commission-supporters current theory regarding the shots
sequence, or who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters
current theory regarding the TSBD-only/Elm-Houston intersection shots
source, or who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters current
theory regarding the number of shots they could hear.

Yes, yes, of course some witnesses are wrong sometimes, butcha' know
what?: on scene witnesses are also correct.
FSHG
2015-10-14 19:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
The combined totals are 140 Dealey Plaza witnesses (a vast majority of
over 75% of the named witnesses) whose stated observations do not agree
with the warren commission-supporters latest theory regarding the shots
sequence, or, who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters
latest theory regarding an only Elm-Houston intersection shots source, or,
who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters latest theory
regarding the number of shots they could hear.

Yes, yes, of course some witnesses are wrong sometimes, butcha' know
what?: on scene witnesses are also correct.

Then, there are also additional Dealey Plaza witnesses who watched JFK
dramatically, near instantly react to his simultaneously being hit with
the first shot they could hear:
FSHG
2016-03-17 00:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
The combined totals are 140 Dealey Plaza witnesses (a vast majority of
over 75% of the named witnesses) whose stated observations do not agree
with the warren commission-supporters latest theory regarding the shots
sequence, or, who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters
latest theory regarding an only Elm-Houston intersection shots source, or,
who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters latest theory
regarding the number of shots they could hear.
Yes, yes, of course some witnesses are wrong sometimes, butcha' know
what?: on scene witnesses are also correct.
Then, there are also additional Dealey Plaza witnesses who watched JFK
dramatically, near instantly react to his simultaneously being hit with
Let us start with Linda Willis and her documented WC testimony (7H498-499)
"Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there
were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the
President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and
he kind of slumped forward."
FSHG
2016-05-31 17:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
The combined totals are 140 Dealey Plaza witnesses (a vast majority of
over 75% of the named witnesses) whose stated observations do not agree
with the warren commission-supporters latest theory regarding the shots
sequence, or, who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters
latest theory regarding an only Elm-Houston intersection shots source, or,
who do not agree with the warren commission-supporters latest theory
regarding the number of shots they could hear.
Yes, yes, of course some witnesses are wrong sometimes, butcha' know
what?: on scene witnesses are also correct.
Then, there are also additional Dealey Plaza witnesses who watched JFK
dramatically, near instantly react to his simultaneously being hit with
Here is an additional Dealey Plaza witness who heard 3 shots and stated
that the second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together
than the first two shots:

Clark, R.
FSHG
2016-06-09 23:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
His car having turned rightward onto Houston, then proceeded further north
towards the TSBD was military veteran, Dealey Plaza witness, and Dallas
Times Herald Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Robert Jackson:

“I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first
and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds,
they were very close together. It could have been more time between the
first and second.” (02H160)

"The second and third shots were closer together."
(@ 1min 40sec:
)
FSHG
2016-07-10 01:32:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
From a 12-4-63 FBI statement:

“ As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed where she was
standing, she and Mrs. SPRINGER turned away and started walking north
towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the curb at Elm Street,
she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks. There was a pause
after the first report, then a second and third report almost at the same
time, and then a pause followed by at least one and possibly more reports.
The noise seemed to come from up in the air, but she never looked up in
that direction. "

Carolyn Walther's 12-4-63 voluntary statement given to, then transcribed
by, the FBI.

After she watched JFK drive past them (where we can see exactly where she
was located in several photos and films), Mrs. Walther and her friend were
walking directly towards the TSBD.

When she was close to the Houston-Elm intersection's southeast corner,
directly across from the TSBD, she heard shots.

The 2nd and 3rd shots she could hear were bunched closer together than the
1st and 2nd shots.

Though the TSBD was nearly directly in front of the same direction she was
walking, and the TSBD was less than 100' from her, Mrs. Walther never
looked at the TSBD.

Mrs. Walther was never called by the Warren Commission to provide her
testimony.
FSHG
2016-08-08 01:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"Clifton C. Carter, riding in the Vice President's follow-up car a short
distance behind, reported that Youngblood was in the rear seat using his
body to shield the Vice President before the second and third shots were
fired." (Warren Commission Report chapter 2, page 52)

But in the important photograph taken by AP photographer Ike Altgens that
is simultaneous with Zapruder frame 255, Agent Youngblood is still sitting
in his front seat - not yet having gotten into the rear seat to cover LBJ,
before the last two shots Cliff Carter could hear.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-09 01:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"Clifton C. Carter, riding in the Vice President's follow-up car a short
distance behind, reported that Youngblood was in the rear seat using his
body to shield the Vice President before the second and third shots were
fired." (Warren Commission Report chapter 2, page 52)
Not exactly. But close enough for government work.
Post by FSHG
But in the important photograph taken by AP photographer Ike Altgens that
is simultaneous with Zapruder frame 255, Agent Youngblood is still sitting
in his front seat - not yet having gotten into the rear seat to cover LBJ,
before the last two shots Cliff Carter could hear.
FSHG
2016-08-13 15:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in
the Presidential car. Mr. MOORE heard two more shots fired, however, the
President was out of Mr. MOORE's sight at the time the last two shots were
fired."

(CE2102, the voluntary statement by very close Dealey Plaza witness Mr. T.
E. Moore he gave to the F.B.I. describing his hearing the first shot he
could hear and seeing JFK immediately slump after being hit with the first
shot)
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-14 18:43:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in
the Presidential car. Mr. MOORE heard two more shots fired, however, the
President was out of Mr. MOORE's sight at the time the last two shots were
fired."
(CE2102, the voluntary statement by very close Dealey Plaza witness Mr. T.
E. Moore he gave to the F.B.I. describing his hearing the first shot he
could hear and seeing JFK immediately slump after being hit with the first
shot)
Meaningless drivel.
bigdog
2016-08-14 18:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in
the Presidential car. Mr. MOORE heard two more shots fired, however, the
President was out of Mr. MOORE's sight at the time the last two shots were
fired."
(CE2102, the voluntary statement by very close Dealey Plaza witness Mr. T.
E. Moore he gave to the F.B.I. describing his hearing the first shot he
could hear and seeing JFK immediately slump after being hit with the first
shot)
Why do people treat witness recollections as if they are establish facts?
Witness get things wrong. Other witnesses reported JFK did not slump with
the first shot. Since there can be only one truth, somebody had to get it
wrong.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-15 19:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"By the time President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton Freeway sign, a
shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President slumping forward in
the Presidential car. Mr. MOORE heard two more shots fired, however, the
President was out of Mr. MOORE's sight at the time the last two shots were
fired."
(CE2102, the voluntary statement by very close Dealey Plaza witness Mr. T.
E. Moore he gave to the F.B.I. describing his hearing the first shot he
could hear and seeing JFK immediately slump after being hit with the first
shot)
Why do people treat witness recollections as if they are establish facts?
Witness get things wrong. Other witnesses reported JFK did not slump with
the first shot. Since there can be only one truth, somebody had to get it
wrong.
Which first shot? You mean the firecracker or the motorcycle backfire?
FSHG
2016-09-17 23:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"A substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together"

(Warren Commission report, page 115)
s***@yahoo.com
2016-09-20 02:53:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"A substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together"
(Warren Commission report, page 115)
A substantial majority of the witnesses WHO WERE QUESTIONED AND WHO
OFFERED AN OPINION/ACCOUNT on the spacing of the shots recalled the second
and third were bunched together.

So how many are we talking about?

Many witnesses who were there were not questioned; and many who were
questioned offered no opinion/thoughts on the spacing.

So, we need some specific numbers.
Anthony Marsh
2016-09-21 00:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"A substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together"
(Warren Commission report, page 115)
A substantial majority of the witnesses WHO WERE QUESTIONED AND WHO
OFFERED AN OPINION/ACCOUNT on the spacing of the shots recalled the second
and third were bunched together.
So how many are we talking about?
Whose report do you choose to believe? A conspiracy believer or a WC
defender? Zapruder told the SS that the shooter was behind him, so McAdams
puts him into the Don't Know category. Read Six Seconds in Dallas or at
least Google it.

WARNING: You may have to visit a kook web site to see the chart. That
may get you on a watch list.

Loading Image...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Many witnesses who were there were not questioned; and many who were
questioned offered no opinion/thoughts on the spacing.
So, we need some specific numbers.
Actual researchers know the specific numbers.
WC defenders are not allowed to know the specific numbers.
FSHG
2016-10-25 18:54:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first
loud, sharp report, and in more rapid succession, two more sounds like
gunfire.”

AND

“There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer
together, two and three were closer together than one and two.”

Stated by Winston Lawson, Secret Service Agent, Advanceman for the Texas
trip in Dallas, and a WWII U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent. Lawson
was riding in the motorcade lead car, and he was located next to the
grassy knoll that was located on his entire right rear, direct right, and
right front during the shots. Of the source of the shots Lawson stated
they were from “over my right shoulder”. At the end of the
Zapruder film and only in its last frames, we can clearly see that
Lawson’s white lead car was located before it reached the entrance
of the mouth of the tunnel under the bridge next to the grassy knoll.

In another interview that was rebroadcast on C-SPAN


Agent Lawson further also strongly supported the vast majority of his
fellow Dealey Plaza witnesses and he is even more specific with respect to
the bunched shots sequence he could hear, stating,

"The third one was a little closer to the second one, than the second one
was to the first one."
bigdog
2016-10-26 03:43:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first
loud, sharp report, and in more rapid succession, two more sounds like
gunfire.”
AND
“There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer
together, two and three were closer together than one and two.”
Stated by Winston Lawson, Secret Service Agent, Advanceman for the Texas
trip in Dallas, and a WWII U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent. Lawson
was riding in the motorcade lead car, and he was located next to the
grassy knoll that was located on his entire right rear, direct right, and
right front during the shots. Of the source of the shots Lawson stated
they were from “over my right shoulder”. At the end of the
Zapruder film and only in its last frames, we can clearly see that
Lawson’s white lead car was located before it reached the entrance
of the mouth of the tunnel under the bridge next to the grassy knoll.
In another interview that was rebroadcast on C-SPAN
http://youtu.be/riEDlZSSWOY
Agent Lawson further also strongly supported the vast majority of his
fellow Dealey Plaza witnesses and he is even more specific with respect to
the bunched shots sequence he could hear, stating,
"The third one was a little closer to the second one, than the second one
was to the first one."
A perception which may or may not be accurate. The perceptions as to the
spacing varied. Most people did not offer an opinion and were never asked.
It is a rather small sample of people who did express an opinion about
that.
Anthony Marsh
2016-10-26 18:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
???As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first
loud, sharp report, and in more rapid succession, two more sounds like
gunfire.???
AND
???There was one report, and a pause, then two more reports closer
together, two and three were closer together than one and two.???
Stated by Winston Lawson, Secret Service Agent, Advanceman for the Texas
trip in Dallas, and a WWII U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent. Lawson
was riding in the motorcade lead car, and he was located next to the
grassy knoll that was located on his entire right rear, direct right, and
right front during the shots. Of the source of the shots Lawson stated
they were from ???over my right shoulder???. At the end of the
Zapruder film and only in its last frames, we can clearly see that
Lawson???s white lead car was located before it reached the entrance
of the mouth of the tunnel under the bridge next to the grassy knoll.
In another interview that was rebroadcast on C-SPAN
http://youtu.be/riEDlZSSWOY
Agent Lawson further also strongly supported the vast majority of his
fellow Dealey Plaza witnesses and he is even more specific with respect to
the bunched shots sequence he could hear, stating,
"The third one was a little closer to the second one, than the second one
was to the first one."
WOW, all that crap, as if it means anything. It means absolutely nothing.
We have the number and timing of the shots from the DPD tape. No need for
guessing.
FSHG
2016-10-29 00:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"The second two shots were immediate: it was almost as if one were an echo
of the other they came so quickly; the sound of one did not cease until
the second shot. With the second and third shots I did see the President
being hit. I literally saw his head explode. So, I felt that the shots had
come, as I wrote in my article, from behind me and to my right, which
would have been in the direction of the grassy knoll and the railroad
overpass."

(Mary Woodward 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" interview
. Mary was a Dallas Morning
News reporter, and very close Elm Street witness who could hear 3 shots
and who President Kennedy was also directly facing at her at Z-190 from
only 20’ away when he was closest to Mary. She was also standing
close to the President with several of her work friends who also gave
their statements. Immediately after the assassination, before it was
announced the president was dead, Woodward recorded her very first
detailed observations when she wrote a Dallas Morning News article
entitled, “Witness from the News Describes the
Assassination,” in which she wrote that while President Kennedy
was directly facing her and her work friends, and then, after he was
ALREADY into the act of waving (his last wave that the Zapruder film
documents that he started at Z-170 to 171, while the large tree hid JFK
from the view of anyone in the "lone nut sniper's lair"), it was then that
the FIRST shot she could hear was fired, “... suddenly there was a
horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the
right.”)
Anthony Marsh
2016-10-29 22:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"The second two shots were immediate: it was almost as if one were an echo
of the other they came so quickly; the sound of one did not cease until
the second shot. With the second and third shots I did see the President
being hit. I literally saw his head explode. So, I felt that the shots had
come, as I wrote in my article, from behind me and to my right, which
would have been in the direction of the grassy knoll and the railroad
overpass."
(Mary Woodward 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" interview
http://youtu.be/LKJOxL9YxZ4 . Mary was a Dallas Morning
News reporter, and very close Elm Street witness who could hear 3 shots
and who President Kennedy was also directly facing at her at Z-190 from
only 20’ away when he was closest to Mary. She was also standing
close to the President with several of her work friends who also gave
their statements. Immediately after the assassination, before it was
announced the president was dead, Woodward recorded her very first
detailed observations when she wrote a Dallas Morning News article
entitled, “Witness from the News Describes the
Assassination,” in which she wrote that while President Kennedy
was directly facing her and her work friends, and then, after he was
ALREADY into the act of waving (his last wave that the Zapruder film
documents that he started at Z-170 to 171, while the large tree hid JFK
from the view of anyone in the "lone nut sniper's lair"), it was then that
the FIRST shot she could hear was fired, “... suddenly there was a
horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the
right.”)
Do you mean the Mary Woodward who said the shot came from the grassy
knoll and her editor had to rewrite her story?
FSHG
2016-10-30 13:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
Robert Jackson, DP close witness and Pulitzer Prize winning photographer
for the Dallas Times Herald stated for his umpteenth time (including to
the WC) in the 1999 documentary, "Moment of Impact: Stories of the
Pulitzer Prize Photographs"....

http://youtu.be/ctNVyf9jdCM

"The second and third shots were closer together."
Anthony Marsh
2016-10-31 01:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
Yes. The rifle jammed.
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
Robert Jackson, DP close witness and Pulitzer Prize winning photographer
for the Dallas Times Herald stated for his umpteenth time (including to
the WC) in the 1999 documentary, "Moment of Impact: Stories of the
Pulitzer Prize Photographs"....
http://youtu.be/ctNVyf9jdCM
"The second and third shots were closer together."
FSHG
2016-11-01 21:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
Robert Jackson, DP close witness and the Pulitzer Prize winning
photographer for the Dallas Times Herald stated for his umpteenth time
(including to the WC) in the Emmy Award winning documentary, "Moment of
Impact: Stories of the Pulitzer Prize Photographs" (1999)
http://youtu.be/ctNVyf9jdCM

"The second and third shots were closer together."
FSHG
2016-11-26 16:26:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”

Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.

Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.

Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
Anthony Marsh
2016-11-27 04:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”
Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.
Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.
Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
What tree where is supposed to block what during which Zapruder frames?
Kooks are always vague about that.
bigdog
2016-11-28 00:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”
Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.
Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.
Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
You don't prove anything by citing what a witness said because witnesses
can be and often are wrong. I've seen people make all kinds of arguments
for when the first shot was fired based on what a selected witness said
and it doesn't prove squat. For example Ladybird said the first shot was
fired as they were turning from Houston onto Elm. The driver said the
first shot was fired after the car had straightened out on Elm St. They
can't both be right. It's possible they could both be wrong.

You can't prove anything based on what a witness has said unless you can
prove the witness is right about what they remember.
FSHG
2016-11-29 17:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”
Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.
Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.
Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
You don't prove anything by citing what a witness said because witnesses
can be and often are wrong. I've seen people make all kinds of arguments
for when the first shot was fired based on what a selected witness said
and it doesn't prove squat. For example "Lady bird"[SIC] said the first shot was
fired as they were turning from Houston onto Elm.
bigdog - That is incorrect about what "Lady bird" documented for us.

In the past, you may or may not have read that in her outstanding, rare book, “A White House Diary” (1970, publisher: "Holt, Rinehart & Winston") that "Lady bird" wrote her 11-22-63 witnessed details directly from her personal notes that she also admitted that she documented right after the assassination.

"Lady bird" wrote for us,

“[we were] going down a hill, and suddenly there was
a sharp, loud report. It sounded like a shot. The
sound seemed to me to come from a building on the
right above my shoulder. A moment passed, and then
two more shots rang out in rapid succession.”


Her statement that their car was already,

"going down a hill"

when she heard the first shot that she remembered hearing (or could hear) also further supports and strengthens her fellow co-witnesses first heard shot time stamping that:

they had ALREADY completed the sweeping turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street,

that their car had ALREADY straightened-out,

and, her car was ALREADY going downhill because her,

"going down a hill"

Elm Street location starts at a very specific point that is directly in front of the Depository, even with the western half of the TSBD - and when we actually study a professionally-surveyed Dealey Plaza map (such as those documented by Dallas County Surveyor, Robert West) we can clearly see that the

"going down a hill"

location point does NOT start back at the start of the Houston/Elm intersection turn at her car location that is clearly documented for us in the Zapruder film at Z-150 to Z-160, when her car was, actually, still documented in the Zapruder film, STILL, MAKING ITS LEFT TURN from Houston Street, onto Elm Street.

"Lady bird" also documented and supports the substantial majority of “Lady bird's” Dealey Plaza fellow co-witnesses in that the last two shots she could hear were rapidly bunched together - NOT further apart than the first two heard shots - as the Warren Commission swallower's, current, theory mandates.
Post by bigdog
The driver said the
first shot was fired after the car had straightened out on Elm St. They
can't both be right. It's possible they could both be wrong.
You can't prove anything based on what a witness has said unless you can
prove the witness is right about what they remember.
Anthony Marsh
2016-11-30 15:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by bigdog
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”
Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.
Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.
Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
You don't prove anything by citing what a witness said because witnesses
can be and often are wrong. I've seen people make all kinds of arguments
for when the first shot was fired based on what a selected witness said
and it doesn't prove squat. For example "Lady bird"[SIC] said the first shot was
fired as they were turning from Houston onto Elm.
bigdog - That is incorrect about what "Lady bird" documented for us.
In the past, you may or may not have read that in her outstanding, rare book, “A White House Diary” (1970, publisher: "Holt, Rinehart & Winston") that "Lady bird" wrote her 11-22-63 witnessed details directly from her personal notes that she also admitted that she documented right after the assassination.
That's nice, but I must have missed part of this thread, because you
seem to be arguing with someone who pretends to be a WC defender.
So you have to play along and assume he really is a WC defender,
arguendo and agree with him. What you are quoting just seems to support
the WC, so on what basis can you argue against him?
I believe, but I think almost all WC defenders would believe her.
I've never met a real WC defender yet who thinks that more than 3 or
less than 3 shots were fired, all from the TSBD sniper's nest.
So, what is your excellent point?
Why can't you save it for me or the Alterationists?
Post by FSHG
"Lady bird" wrote for us,
“[we were] going down a hill, and suddenly there was
a sharp, loud report. It sounded like a shot. The
sound seemed to me to come from a building on the
right above my shoulder. A moment passed, and then
two more shots rang out in rapid succession.”
Her statement that their car was already,
"going down a hill"
they had ALREADY completed the sweeping turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street,
that their car had ALREADY straightened-out,
and, her car was ALREADY going downhill because her,
"going down a hill"
Elm Street location starts at a very specific point that is directly in front of the Depository, even with the western half of the TSBD - and when we actually study a professionally-surveyed Dealey Plaza map (such as those documented by Dallas County Surveyor, Robert West) we can clearly see that the
Oh really? Can you mark it on a map for me? Is there a crosswalk marked
there in 1963? How do you mark the boundary on a curve?
Post by FSHG
"going down a hill"
location point does NOT start back at the start of the Houston/Elm intersection turn at her car location that is clearly documented for us in the Zapruder film at Z-150 to Z-160, when her car was, actually, still documented in the Zapruder film, STILL, MAKING ITS LEFT TURN from Houston Street, onto Elm Street.
"Lady bird" also documented and supports the substantial majority of “Lady bird's” Dealey Plaza fellow co-witnesses in that the last two shots she could hear were rapidly bunched together - NOT further apart than the first two heard shots - as the Warren Commission swallower's, current, theory mandates.
Post by bigdog
The driver said the
first shot was fired after the car had straightened out on Elm St. They
can't both be right. It's possible they could both be wrong.
You can't prove anything based on what a witness has said unless you can
prove the witness is right about what they remember.
When you ASSuMe the witness is right that is just your bias.
bigdog
2016-12-01 01:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by bigdog
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“When the motorcade passed she was looking at Mrs. KENNEDY who was
looking to the other side of the car. The President was looking in her
direction and she had waved. She heard the shot fired as the President was
waving. Thereafter she heard two additional shots, shots which seemed to
have come from right over her head. She said she looked up and saw
nothing.”
Very close witness Patricia Ann Lawrence (who soon married, and her
married last name became "Donaldson"), in her 11-24-63 statement to the
F.B.I.
Lawrence was standing on President Kennedy’s side of the
limousine, along the north Elm Street curb point that was out from nearly
the direct center of the Depository.
Mrs. Kennedy was, indeed, “looking to the other side of the
car” until Z-169 to 170, then she fairly quickly first started
turning her head rightward, and, “as the President was
waving” is time stamped exactly to after when President Kennedy
was ALREADY in the act of the wave that started after Z-170 to 172 - when
the thick foliages and branches of the large tree had ALREADY BLOCKED
--and STILL BLOCKED-- anyone in the, supposed, “lone nut”
lair from being able to view or target him
You don't prove anything by citing what a witness said because witnesses
can be and often are wrong. I've seen people make all kinds of arguments
for when the first shot was fired based on what a selected witness said
and it doesn't prove squat. For example "Lady bird"[SIC] said the first shot was
fired as they were turning from Houston onto Elm.
bigdog - That is incorrect about what "Lady bird" documented for us.
In the past, you may or may not have read that in her outstanding, rare book, “A White House Diary” (1970, publisher: "Holt, Rinehart & Winston") that "Lady bird" wrote her 11-22-63 witnessed details directly from her personal notes that she also admitted that she documented right after the assassination.
"Lady bird" wrote for us,
“[we were] going down a hill, and suddenly there was
a sharp, loud report. It sounded like a shot. The
sound seemed to me to come from a building on the
right above my shoulder. A moment passed, and then
two more shots rang out in rapid succession.”
Is there a reason you clipped this quote out of context starting in the
middle of the sentence. Ladybird made a recording of her recollections to
Time magazine and a transcript of that recording was given to the Warren
Commision.

The ENTIRE sentence read, "Then almost at the edge of town, on our way to
the Trade Mart where we were going to have the luncheon, we were rounding
a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report--a
shot. It seemed to me to come from the right, above my shoulder, from a
building.".

Was there a reason you snipped out the first part of the sentence where
she said "we were rounding a curve"? Were you deliberately trying to
create a false impression of what she actually said. When you quote
someone, you should at least quote entire sentences if not the whole
paragraph. Quoting phrases out of context is a half truth. So what is the
other half of a half truth?
Post by FSHG
Her statement that their car was already,
"going down a hill"
they had ALREADY completed the sweeping turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street,
that their car had ALREADY straightened-out,
and, her car was ALREADY going downhill because her,
"going down a hill"
Elm Street location starts at a very specific point that is directly in front of the Depository, even with the western half of the TSBD - and when we actually study a professionally-surveyed Dealey Plaza map (such as those documented by Dallas County Surveyor, Robert West) we can clearly see that the
"going down a hill"
That's right. Keep telling half truths. Only quote the part where she said
"going down a hill" and leave out the first part of the sentence in which
she said, "we were rounding a curve". So typical of conspiracy hobbyists
to only tell the part of a story that supports their beliefs.
Post by FSHG
location point does NOT start back at the start of the Houston/Elm intersection turn at her car location that is clearly documented for us in the Zapruder film at Z-150 to Z-160, when her car was, actually, still documented in the Zapruder film, STILL, MAKING ITS LEFT TURN from Houston Street, onto Elm Street.
"Lady bird" also documented and supports the substantial majority of “Lady bird's” Dealey Plaza fellow co-witnesses in that the last two shots she could hear were rapidly bunched together - NOT further apart than the first two heard shots - as the Warren Commission swallower's, current, theory mandates.
Post by bigdog
The driver said the
first shot was fired after the car had straightened out on Elm St. They
can't both be right. It's possible they could both be wrong.
You can't prove anything based on what a witness has said unless you can
prove the witness is right about what they remember.
FSHG
2017-03-28 23:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"You know when kids play cowboys and Indians and they go, “Bam!
---- bam bam!” The last two [were] clustered together."

Thomas Atkins, the United States Navy Commander assigned as a White House
movie cameraman, and a Dallas motorcade rider, quoted in the book,
“Pictures of the Pain” (page 371). Commander Atkins,
exactly as a "substantial majority" of his fellow DP witnesses, detailed
for us that of the three shots that he remembered hearing (or could hear),
the last two shots were bunched much closer together than the first two
shots he could hear.

Commander Atkins was not called to testify to the Warren Commission and he
was not asked to give a written statement by any of its investigators.
Anthony Marsh
2017-03-30 04:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"You know when kids play cowboys and Indians and they go, ???Bam!
---- bam bam!??? The last two [were] clustered together."
Thomas Atkins, the United States Navy Commander assigned as a White House
movie cameraman, and a Dallas motorcade rider, quoted in the book,
???Pictures of the Pain??? (page 371). Commander Atkins,
exactly as a "substantial majority" of his fellow DP witnesses, detailed
for us that of the three shots that he remembered hearing (or could hear),
the last two shots were bunched much closer together than the first two
shots he could hear.
Commander Atkins was not called to testify to the Warren Commission and he
was not asked to give a written statement by any of its investigators.
Nice to see that you do not rely on the WC. But most witnesses did not
testify to the WC. Every source so far including the WC and the HSCA
agreed that of the witnesses contacted, the majority said that the last
two shot were closer together. And the acoustical evidence proved it. Some
witness lists are better than others and some tabulators simply LIE about
what a witness said. When Zapruder says the shooter was behind him the
dishonest researchers put him into the DON'T KNOW category.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson listed 65 witnesses:

7 said the first two shots were bunched.
40 said the last two shots were bunched.
13 said the shots were evenly spaced.
5 said there were 4 shots and the first two were bunched, then a pause
and then the last two were bunched.


Do you believe that Oswald could have shot JFK at frame Z-210
and then shot Connally at frame Z-230? If not, then you must be in some
type of Single Bullet Theory.
Point of Interest: Could there also be a Single Bullet theory for the
last 2 hits?
Do we have to call it SBT2 or SBT Part Deux?
FSHG
2017-03-31 21:04:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"There was a longer pause between the first and second shots, than there
was between the second and third shots."

(Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, motorcade rider, DP witness, Warren Commission
volume 7, page 478. Cabell rode in a car that was a distance of 4 cars
after JFK. The 11-23-63 Dallas Morning News quoted Mayor Cabell
(presumably an 11-22-63 quote he stated) that he heard the first shot he
could hear exactly as his car was still in the process of turning onto Elm
Street, then, there were fired, "two or three more" shots)
Anthony Marsh
2017-04-01 20:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"There was a longer pause between the first and second shots, than there
was between the second and third shots."
(Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, motorcade rider, DP witness, Warren Commission
volume 7, page 478. Cabell rode in a car that was a distance of 4 cars
after JFK. The 11-23-63 Dallas Morning News quoted Mayor Cabell
(presumably an 11-22-63 quote he stated) that he heard the first shot he
could hear exactly as his car was still in the process of turning onto Elm
Street, then, there were fired, "two or three more" shots)
Selection bias.
FSHG
2017-04-03 19:40:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and
the second shot, than there was between the second and third
shot.”

(Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, Warren Commission volume 2, page
150. Youngblood rode in the front right seat of LBJ's convertible.
Himself and LBJ both told the Warren Commission that after the first shot
they could hear that Youngblood moved over his front seat and was already
protectively atop LBJ and covering LBJ in the back seat before the second
shot they could hear. In the Ike Altgens photo captured simultaneously
with Zapruder frame 255 Youngblood is documented to be still sitting in
his front seat)
Anthony Marsh
2017-04-04 00:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and
the second shot, than there was between the second and third
shot.”
(Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, Warren Commission volume 2, page
150. Youngblood rode in the front right seat of LBJ's convertible.
Himself and LBJ both told the Warren Commission that after the first shot
they could hear that Youngblood moved over his front seat and was already
protectively atop LBJ and covering LBJ in the back seat before the second
shot they could hear. In the Ike Altgens photo captured simultaneously
with Zapruder frame 255 Youngblood is documented to be still sitting in
his front seat)
After WHICH shot? Maybe after the LAST shot.
bigdog
2018-05-06 23:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jackson, R.
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Shields
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
Walther
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
“There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and
the second shot, than there was between the second and third
shot.”
(Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, Warren Commission volume 2, page
150. Youngblood rode in the front right seat of LBJ's convertible.
Himself and LBJ both told the Warren Commission that after the first shot
they could hear that Youngblood moved over his front seat and was already
protectively atop LBJ and covering LBJ in the back seat before the second
shot they could hear. In the Ike Altgens photo captured simultaneously
with Zapruder frame 255 Youngblood is documented to be still sitting in
his front seat)
That's a very astute observation. What it illustrates is that people don't
recall things exactly the way it happened. People tend to remember bits
and pieces of an event but they often have trouble with timing and
sequence. They doesn't mean they lie. They just don't have perfect recall.
FSHG
2016-09-05 20:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"It seemed like there was more time between the first and the second shots
than between the second and the third. The second and the third were
pretty close together."

(Dealey Plaza witness and Dallas police sergeant David V. Harkness, "No
More Silence" page 205)
bigdog
2016-09-06 15:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"It seemed like there was more time between the first and the second shots
than between the second and the third. The second and the third were
pretty close together."
(Dealey Plaza witness and Dallas police sergeant David V. Harkness, "No
More Silence" page 205)
Other witnesses said the shots were evenly spaced.

Still others said the first two shots were closer together.

I guess they witnessed 3 different assassinations.
Anthony Marsh
2016-09-07 02:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
Post by FSHG
I was reading an interesting post in one of the forums about
witness/photographer Bob Jackson that included the following paragraphs
about the WC's theoretical shot sequence that I had never realized, until
now, was true.
It mentions that the majority of the witnesses stated the second and third
heard shots were bunched much closer together than the first and second
shots.
BUT, the WC (current) theory has the second and third shots timed 46%
further apart than the WC's first and second shots.
The most important determination by Mr. Jackson, by far, (that he has also
always maintained to this very day), AND, that the WCR report even also
admitted to a "substantial majority" witnesses majority (that Dulles
stated was a five-to-one ratio), is that Mr. Jackson, along a very
significant, large percentage of his fellow witnesses who recalled hearing
3 or more shots, all maintained and described that the 2nd and 3rd shots
were definitely bunched much closer together, than were the 1st and 2nd
shots they could hear.
http://youtu.be/VGzCNg1OEww
http://youtu.be/VfF1vsXG-bo
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20141118-photographers-recall-capturing-the-history-of-kennedy-assassination.ece
- But, WC believers (current) theory of LN shots triggered at Zap-160,
221, and triggered at 310, is contradictory to the significant majority of
the witnesses actually there, in that the (current) WC theory places its
2nd and 3rd LN shots 46% further spaced apart than its 1st and 2nd
theoretical LN shots--"
A number like 46% is very, very significant IMHO, and a majority of
persons definitely WOULD notice that significant difference.
(especially witnesses, laws enforcement officials, and Secret Service
Agents who had extensive prior experiences actually firing weapons)
(for example, do you think you would notice a politician winning an
election by 46%, or your suddenly having to pay today $3.18 for a gallon
for gas that was $2.17 yesterday)
Whether you are a CT or (especially) a LNer, can you simply explain that
46% longer time in the WC current theory?
DP witnesses who heard 3 shots and have stated and/or testified that the
second two shots were bunched noticeably much closer together than the
Adams
Arce
Atkins
Atterberry
Aynesworth
Berry
Boone
Bowers
Cabell, D.
Cabell, E.
Chism, M.
Craig
Craven
Crawford
Donaldson
Elkins
Foster, J.
Frazier, B.
Gonzalez
Grant
Greer
Harkness
Harris
Haygood
Hickey
Hoefen
Jacks
Jarman
Johnson, C.
Jones
Kilduff
Kinney
Lawrence
Lawson
Lovelady
MacNeil
Martin
McCurley
McIntyre
Miller
Mitchell
Molina
Mooney
Murray
Parker
Paschall
Paternostro
Rich
Roberts
Rowland, A.
Rowland, B.
Shelley
Similas
Skaggs
Smith, R.
Solon
Sorrels
Springer
Sweatt
Taylor
Thornton
Truly
Weitzman
Willis, L.
Wiseman
Woodward
Wright, J.
Wright, M.
Youngblood
Brownlow
Burroughs
Carr
Edwards
Euins
Fischer
Foster, T.
Henderson
Hicks
Hill, J.
Holland
McCarrell
Millican
Nix
Orr
Price
Rickerby
Shelton
Skelton
Speaker
West
Worrell
Then there are the previously not listed DP witnesses who, no matter how
many shots they heard, stated that, at least, one shot was fired from a
Baker, B.
Bronson, C.
Burns
Campbell
Chism, J.
Davis
Dodd
Dorman
Garner
Givens, A.
Hawkins
Hester, B.
Hoffman
Hopson
Hudson
Johnson, C.
Kounas
Landis
Mabra
McCully
McKinnon
McLain
McVey
Murphy
Newman, G.
Newman, J.
Newman, W.
O'Donnell
Potter
Powers
Rachley
Reese
Reilly
Simmons
Slack
Smith, D.
Smith, E.
Smith, J.
Stanton, H.
Tague
Templin
Vachule
Weatherford
Whitaker
Williams
Willis, R.
Wilson
Yates
Winborn
Zapruder
"It seemed like there was more time between the first and the second shots
than between the second and the third. The second and the third were
pretty close together."
(Dealey Plaza witness and Dallas police sergeant David V. Harkness, "No
More Silence" page 205)
Other witnesses said the shots were evenly spaced.
Still others said the first two shots were closer together.
I guess they witnessed 3 different assassinations.
I guess there were 3 different types of witnesses.
FSHG
2018-04-30 13:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Hudson was looking directly at President Kennedy and saw his head slump
to one side simultaneously with the loud report made by the first shot."


(quote in Warren Commission Document 5 from Emmett Joseph Hudson, another
very close witness, in his very first statement when, like many of his
fellow co-witnesses, he also detailed President Kennedy immediately,
instantaneously, reacting to JFK being impacted by the 1st of the 3
audible shots, and/or, "silenced" blasts that Hudson remembered hearing,
or, that Mr. Hudson could hear)
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-01 15:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FSHG
"Hudson was looking directly at President Kennedy and saw his head slump
to one side simultaneously with the loud report made by the first shot."
(quote in Warren Commission Document 5 from Emmett Joseph Hudson, another
very close witness, in his very first statement when, like many of his
fellow co-witnesses, he also detailed President Kennedy immediately,
instantaneously, reacting to JFK being impacted by the 1st of the 3
audible shots, and/or, "silenced" blasts that Hudson remembered hearing,
or, that Mr. Hudson could hear)
Worthless. Maybe the first shot he recognized as a shot. A lot of people
thought the first loud noise was a motorcycle backfiring.


BTW, silencers were not used.
FSHG
2018-05-03 00:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
" After the car passed the building coming toward us, I heard a surprising
noise, and [the President] reached with both hands up to the side of his
throat and kind of stiffened out.

And when he got down in the area just past me, the SECOND SHOT hit which
damaged, considerably damaged, the top of his head.

That car took off in an evasive motion and was just beyond me when a THIRD
SHOT went off. The third shot really frightened me! It had a completely
different sound to it because it had really passed me as anybody knows who
has been in down under targets in the Army or been shot at like I had been
many times. You know when a bullet passes over you, the cracking sound it
makes, and that bullet had an absolute crack to it. I do believe that that
shot was wild. It didn't hit anybody. I don't think it could have hit
anybody. But it was a frightening thing to me because here was one shot
that hit him, obviously; here was another shot that destroyed his head,
and what was the reason for that third shot? That third shot frightened me
more than the other two, and I grabbed the boy and threw him on the ground
because I didn't know if we were going to have a 'shoot-'em-up' in this
area.

I was telling them that there were rifle shots and that they came from up
in the corner of the School Book Depository or up in the corner of the
building across from it. "

(Charles Brehm, a World War II, combat gunfire experienced, United States
Army Ranger, D-Day veteran France and Europe liberator at the D-Day Point
du Hoc cliffs, and, an 11-22-63, very close Dealey Plaza attack witness,
describing that the first audible muzzle blast or mechanically
suppressed-fired bullet bow shock wave that Brehm remembered hearing (or
could hear) struck President Kennedy and the President instantaneously
reacted to his being impacted by raising his arms upwards quickly with his
hands near his throat, and that the third blast or shock wave Brehm
remembered hearing (or could hear) missed hitting anyone or any thing. Mr.
Brehm also told the F.B.I. that the shots he heard were fired from either
the Depository, and/or, the Dal-Tex Building)
PSY DOC
2018-05-06 01:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
" When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see
the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning
forward WHEN HE STIFFENED PERCEPTIBLY AT THE SAME INSTANT WHAT APPEARED TO
BE A RIFLE SHOT SOUNDED. According to BREHM, the President seemed to
stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President
appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was
hit by the SECOND SHOT, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and
then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in
that direction.

BREHM said that A THIRD SHOT FOLLOWED and that all three shots were
relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service
and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed his
opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an
individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three
shots.

BREHM stated he definitely knew that the President had been shot and he
recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it
seemed quite apparent to him that THE SHOTS CAME FROM ONE OF TWO BUILDINGS
back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets."


(Charles Brehm, a World War II, combat gunfire experienced, United States
Army Ranger, D-Day veteran France and Europe liberator at the D-Day Point
du Hoc cliffs, in his F.B.I. statement, 11-24-63, describing that the
first audible muzzle blast or mechanically suppressed-fired bullet bow
shock wave that Brehm remembered hearing (or could hear) struck President
Kennedy and the President instantaneously reacted to his being impacted by
raising his arms upwards quickly with his hands near his throat, and that
the third blast or shock wave Brehm remembered hearing (or could hear)
missed hitting anyone or any thing. Mr. Brehm also told the F.B.I. that
the shots he could hear were fired from either the Depository, and/or, the
Dal-Tex Building)
PSY DOC
2018-05-06 01:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[QUOTE]

There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer
pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third
shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something
like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.

[END QUOTE]

(Allen Dulles, 1964, the then-wc commissioner and ex-CIA Director (fired
by JFK) describing that 83% of the witnesses that the wc knew of who could
hear at least 3 shots also stated that the last 2 shots were bunched
distinctly closer together than the first 2 shots they could hear)
bigdog
2018-05-06 23:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PSY DOC
[QUOTE]
There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer
pause between the report of the first shot... and the second and third
shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something
like 5 to 1 or something of that kind.
[END QUOTE]
(Allen Dulles, 1964, the then-wc commissioner and ex-CIA Director (fired
by JFK) describing that 83% of the witnesses that the wc knew of who could
hear at least 3 shots also stated that the last 2 shots were bunched
distinctly closer together than the first 2 shots they could hear)
I don't put much stock in any of these accounts unless they can be
corroborated. How can we when these accounts vary so much. You wouldn't
even know people were describing the same event. Fortunately we do have
one witness with perfect recall and that is Zapruder's camera. When know
for certain when the two shots that struck JFK were fired. Due to the lack
of sound, the time of the missed shot cannot be pinpointed. We have to
rely on the apparent reactions of people, most notably Connally to
guesstimate when that shot was fired. Connally was seen to suddenly snap
his head to his right at Z164. He later said he did this in reaction to
the sound of the first shot. What we don't know is whether that reaction
was instantaneous or delayed. If the blurring of Zapruder's camera at Z158
is in reaction to the sound of the first shot, that would indicate the
shot was fired about Z151-152. That allows for the time it would take the
sound of the muzzle blast to reach Zapruder and the time it would take for
him to react to that stimulus. A first shot at that instant would indicate
there was a longer time between the second and third shots than between
the first and second.
PSY DOC
2018-05-08 01:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
“The last two were closer than the first.

In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two
were real close.”

Warren Commission testimony of 11-22-63 Dallas police motorcycle escort
within JFK's motorcade, Clyde A. Haygood (who was riding on Houston
Street, facing towards the Texas School Book Depository, during the
shots), about the last 2 shots he could hear were bunched much closer
together than the first 2 shots he could hear. Within the first seconds
after the shots ended, officer Haygood also chose to drive completely PAST
the Texas School Book Depository, and, instead, he then first stopped his
motorcycle on Elm Street at the base of the grassy knoll, and chose to
immediately run, first, to the grassy knoll.

Loading...