Discussion:
Don Willis further undercuts his position
(too old to reply)
John Corbett
2020-08-23 17:56:48 UTC
Permalink
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
Dillard photo:

Loading Image...

If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.

Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
donald willis
2020-08-23 22:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....

even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....

dcw
John Corbett
2020-08-24 10:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
donald willis
2020-08-25 02:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.

dcw
John Corbett
2020-08-25 14:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
donald willis
2020-08-26 02:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.

dcw
John Corbett
2020-08-27 00:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804

You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
point:

"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."

The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-08-28 01:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.

Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.


Go for it, Don.

The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.

Hank
John Corbett
2020-08-28 13:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
The same premise as the two videos I posted below this one. I failed to
spot any of the anomalies. I remained focused entirely on the red cup that
held the Hershey's Kiss. I got it right both times but it required 100% of
my focus. By focusing on that, I missed everything else that was going on.
It's easy to transpose this experiment to what happened in Dealey Plaza.
The shooter would have drawn 100% of the focus of anyone who was able to
locate him. It is highly doubtful anyone would have actually paid any
attention to how wide open the window was. If they didn't perceive that
initially, there is no way it would reside in their memories. As you
observed, we tend to fill in the blanks with the missing details but that
doesn't mean we fill them in correctly.

I think we can apply this to some of the other witness errors in Dealey
Plaza. For example, the spacing of the shots. A majority seemed to think
the last two shots were closer together but unless we accept the Max
Holland theory of the first shot being fired before Zapruder resumed
filming, it is almost certain shots 1 and 2 were closer together than 2
and 3. So why did so many get that wrong. For starters, many did not
recognize the first bang as a gun shot. They thought it was a firecracker
or a motorcycle backfire. It was only after JFK slumped following the
second shot that people began to realize it was an assassination. Then
they heard the third shot and saw his head explode. Is it any wonder that
so many would perceive that the last two shots were closer together?
c***@gmail.com
2020-08-31 19:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
The same premise as the two videos I posted below this one. I failed to
spot any of the anomalies. I remained focused entirely on the red cup that
held the Hershey's Kiss. I got it right both times but it required 100% of
my focus. By focusing on that, I missed everything else that was going on.
It's easy to transpose this experiment to what happened in Dealey Plaza.
The shooter would have drawn 100% of the focus of anyone who was able to
locate him. It is highly doubtful anyone would have actually paid any
attention to how wide open the window was. If they didn't perceive that
initially, there is no way it would reside in their memories. As you
observed, we tend to fill in the blanks with the missing details but that
doesn't mean we fill them in correctly.
I think we can apply this to some of the other witness errors in Dealey
Plaza. For example, the spacing of the shots. A majority seemed to think
the last two shots were closer together but unless we accept the Max
Holland theory of the first shot being fired before Zapruder resumed
filming, it is almost certain shots 1 and 2 were closer together than 2
and 3. So why did so many get that wrong. For starters, many did not
recognize the first bang as a gun shot. They thought it was a firecracker
or a motorcycle backfire. It was only after JFK slumped following the
second shot that people began to realize it was an assassination. Then
they heard the third shot and saw his head explode. Is it any wonder that
so many would perceive that the last two shots were closer together?
The spatial problems regarding the shots fired, and the witnesses'
perception of the spacing, is related to the Kappa effect and the Tau
effect. This scientifically explains one possible reason why so many
people reported the second and third shots as being right on top of each
other:

"The kappa effect or perceptual time dilation[1] is a temporal perceptual
illusion that can arise when observers judge the elapsed time between
sensory stimuli applied sequentially at different locations. In perceiving
a sequence of consecutive stimuli, subjects tend to overestimate the
elapsed time between two successive stimuli when the distance between the
stimuli is sufficiently large, and to underestimate the elapsed time when
the distance is sufficiently small."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_effect#:~:text=The%20tau%20effect%20is%20a,stimuli%20in%20a%20stimulus%20sequence.
donald willis
2020-08-28 21:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
No one said that they NOTICED a suspect or a rifle in Dealey Plaza. So,
no one noticed a suspect or a rifle in Dealey?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
Hank
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-08-29 11:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
No one said that they NOTICED a suspect or a rifle in Dealey Plaza. So,
no one noticed a suspect or a rifle in Dealey?
You are avoiding the point I made.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
Hank
You avoided my point here too.
John Corbett
2020-08-29 11:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
No one said that they NOTICED a suspect or a rifle in Dealey Plaza. So,
no one noticed a suspect or a rifle in Dealey?
I was wondering where you had gone, Don. When you didn't respond to the
question I posed to you in a new thread or to any other threads, I
wondered if you had left us. Was that question too difficult? I thought it
was pretty straight forward. You also have avoided addressing the videos
which Hank and I have presented which reveal how easy it is to overlook
things when we are focused on something else. Like overlooking how wide
open a window is because we are fixated on the gunman in that window. Both
of those things are pertinent to what you are claiming now.

Any chance you are going to respond to either of these?
John Corbett
2020-08-30 00:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
Yes I did but it required 100% of my focus so I missed all the other
things that went on. I was zeroed in on the cup with the candy the entire
time to the exclusion of everything else.
BT George
2020-08-31 03:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
Yes I did but it required 100% of my focus so I missed all the other
things that went on. I was zeroed in on the cup with the candy the entire
time to the exclusion of everything else.
I think CT's think that when we say eyewitness testimony (due to memory
and attention span) is the poorest form of hard evidence, we are saying
that such testimony is worthless. Not at all, because sometimes it's all
you have, but even then, what you look for then is *general* agreement on
*basic* and *important* facts. (E.g., without shred of other evidence we
could establish pretty satisfactorily that John F. Kennedy was felled by
gunfire containing at least 2-3 shots as he passed through Dealy Plaza on
Nov. 11, 1963.) But what they fail---or refuse---to grasp, is that beyond
the *basic* facts, there is poor reliability even of the *earliest*
memories, and terrible reliability of later ones. Moreover, real world
experience has shown that in times of stress or crisis, memory and
observation powers, if anything, are *worse*.

But in the case of the Kennedy Assassination, it is the only form of
evidence that yields to their seemingly ever more creative interpretive
desires. The reason they gravitate towards it is that they have
fundamentally committed themselves to a proposition "There was/must have
been a conspiracy." And that a priori commitment causes them to reject
any form or interpretation of evidence that contradicts it. Up-front
philosophical and/or religious beliefs create the same temptation for
everyone. (We all have certain subjective beliefs that we sometimes
interpret objective reality by.) The question I have always had is why
CT's are so commitment to such a *completely* unnecessary interpretation
of what at its heart is such a simple proposition? What's more
reasonable, plot involving sometimes hundreds or thousands of people, or
the notion that a troubled would-be Marxist revolutionary took it into his
head one day to shoot the leader of the capitalist free world as he rode
by his work place at a slow pace in an open limousine. Call me crazy, but
to take the former seems to be the more likely the fool's bet going in.
John Corbett
2020-08-31 12:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by John Corbett
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John Corbett
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way
I think that you meant "fifth" floor....
even though there is absolutely no reason to
Post by John Corbett
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was.
And yet Belin & Specter found several witnesses who did just
that--Jackson, Brennan, Fischer, Euins & Edwards. Absolutely never say
"absolutely" again....
They gave their impressions which doesn't mean they actually took note of
exactly how wide open the window was at the time they were looking up.
That is what you fail to grasp. People don't usually notice unimportant
details and at the time they were looking up, there would have been no
reason to think that was important.
A distinction without a difference, Mr. Denial.
I'm not at all surprised that you don't notice the difference.
The dictionary states that "notice" and "see" are synonyms. There is no
distinction.
We aren't talking about dictionary definitions. We are talking about real
world differences. People see lots of things that they don't actually
notice. Here is an excellent story from NPR about this very subject.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934804
You can read the whole article for yourself, but this was the salient
"So looking and seeing are not the same thing. And attention is a great
thing, but it doesn't necessarily spread over the entire visual field - or
everything you want to do."
The people who saw a man with the rifle knew instantly that it would be
important to take note of exactly where that man was. It wouldn't have
seemed the least bit important at the time how wide open the window was so
the witnesses didn't take note of that. The window equates to the
"invisible gorilla".
Don doesn't understand how memory is not like a video recording and it
isn't simply a matter of rewinding the video in your head and looking at
the scene again. It doesn't work that way. Memory fills in the gaps with
reconstructions of the event that make sense to the person recounting the
event. It's not accurate, and tests have established that.
Don also doesn't get how selective attention is. He thinks that noticing
and seeing are equivalent terms, and they aren't.
http://youtu.be/_bnnmWYI0lM
Go for it, Don.
The first test isn't hard. But did you follow throughout and get the right
cup from the nine in the second test? That's a lot tougher.
Yes I did but it required 100% of my focus so I missed all the other
things that went on. I was zeroed in on the cup with the candy the entire
time to the exclusion of everything else.
I think CT's think that when we say eyewitness testimony (due to memory
and attention span) is the poorest form of hard evidence, we are saying
that such testimony is worthless. Not at all, because sometimes it's all
you have, but even then, what you look for then is *general* agreement on
*basic* and *important* facts. (E.g., without shred of other evidence we
could establish pretty satisfactorily that John F. Kennedy was felled by
gunfire containing at least 2-3 shots as he passed through Dealy Plaza on
Nov. 11, 1963.) But what they fail---or refuse---to grasp, is that beyond
the *basic* facts, there is poor reliability even of the *earliest*
memories, and terrible reliability of later ones. Moreover, real world
experience has shown that in times of stress or crisis, memory and
observation powers, if anything, are *worse*.
But in the case of the Kennedy Assassination, it is the only form of
evidence that yields to their seemingly ever more creative interpretive
desires. The reason they gravitate towards it is that they have
fundamentally committed themselves to a proposition "There was/must have
been a conspiracy." And that a priori commitment causes them to reject
any form or interpretation of evidence that contradicts it. Up-front
philosophical and/or religious beliefs create the same temptation for
everyone. (We all have certain subjective beliefs that we sometimes
interpret objective reality by.) The question I have always had is why
CT's are so commitment to such a *completely* unnecessary interpretation
of what at its heart is such a simple proposition? What's more
reasonable, plot involving sometimes hundreds or thousands of people, or
the notion that a troubled would-be Marxist revolutionary took it into his
head one day to shoot the leader of the capitalist free world as he rode
by his work place at a slow pace in an open limousine. Call me crazy, but
to take the former seems to be the more likely the fool's bet going in.
It really comes down to they don't want to believe the simple most obvious
answers. They won't to believe there is more to the story than a little
loser with a cheap rifle took out the leader of the free world. That's
just too pat of an answer. They want to believe it was something more
interesting than that. Why do they want that? I won't even speculate.
John Corbett
2020-08-28 01:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Here are the two parts of the test reference in the NPR article which I
referenced in my previous post:




https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=invisible+gorilla+test&docid=608008842016328383&mid=647089DAF1C2565C4679647089DAF1C2565C4679&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Because I had read the article, I knew what was coming in the first part
and so noticed it. I didn't know what was coming in the second part and
failed it miserably. If you haven't read the NPR article, take these tests
first. Even if you have read it, these tests are fascinating.
donald willis
2020-08-24 10:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows.
Then you're saying that Euins, by half open, might have meant the
fifth-floor end window? Well, that would tally with his earlier "fifth
floor"....

The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
Post by John Corbett
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.
Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
allan...@yahoo.com
2020-08-24 18:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.
Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
To me the answer to this whole question of which floor the shots were
fired from, whether it was the fifth floor or sixth, can be explained by
the structure of the Depository building. Looking at it from the street
you see no windows on the ground below the parapet on the east side, the
windows start on the second floor. This would make the sixth floor
windows actually appear to be just five floors above the entrance.
Looking at it from the street, you count five floors of windows to where
you saw the shooter and think the shoots were fired from the fifth floor.
John Corbett
2020-08-25 02:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.
Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
To me the answer to this whole question of which floor the shots were
fired from, whether it was the fifth floor or sixth, can be explained by
the structure of the Depository building. Looking at it from the street
you see no windows on the ground below the parapet on the east side, the
windows start on the second floor. This would make the sixth floor
windows actually appear to be just five floors above the entrance.
Looking at it from the street, you count five floors of windows to where
you saw the shooter and think the shoots were fired from the fifth floor.
We've been trying to explain that to Don for a long time but it hasn't
sunk in.

The best evidence for where the shooter fired from is not in any
eyewitness account but in the forensic evidence, all of which was found on
the sixth floor. We also have film and a photo showing the fifth floor was
occupied by three TSBD employees who later testified that is where they
were when the shots were fired and they heard the shots being fired one
floor above them. They heard the ejected shells hitting the floor. On top
of that, two computer animations, one done by Failure Analysis in the
early 1990s and one by Dale Myers about a decade later all point to the
sixth floor as the source of the shots. The eyewitnesses who saw the
shooter with the rifle in the sixth floor window is just icing on the
cake.

Of course Don refuses to accept any of this evidence. According to him,
the three employees lied about being on the fifth floor, the film and
photos that showed them there are fakes, the forensic evidence was moved
from the fifth floor to the sixth, and the witnesses who placed the
shooter on the sixth floor were mistaken. He can believe they could be
wrong about the location but he can't comprehend that they could be wrong
about how wide open the shooter's window was. It is truly comical to read
his explanations for why we shouldn't believe the shooter was on the sixth
floor despite all the evidence that tells us that.
Anthony Marsh
2020-08-26 02:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.
Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
To me the answer to this whole question of which floor the shots were
fired from, whether it was the fifth floor or sixth, can be explained by
the structure of the Depository building. Looking at it from the street
you see no windows on the ground below the parapet on the east side, the
windows start on the second floor. This would make the sixth floor
windows actually appear to be just five floors above the entrance.
Looking at it from the street, you count five floors of windows to where
you saw the shooter and think the shoots were fired from the fifth floor.
The answer came from SCIENCE. SCIENCE poved that 3 shots were fired from
the 6th floor.
Anthony Marsh
2020-08-25 03:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
No, stop mirepresenting what other posters say.
Don does not think that Oswald fired ANY shots that day.
Don does not believe the window was WIDE OPEN.
HE KNOWS that it was barely open.
Post by John Corbett
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
It was NOT HALFWAY. YOU are halfway and should be in a halfway house.
Post by John Corbett
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
You mean the way they were constructed? Wood, not steeel? Brilliant!
I uploaded the Dillard photo. Do you agree that it is authentic?
The 5th floor window was open almost all the way.
The 6th floor window was barely open. Not the same.
Post by John Corbett
window is a little more than three quarters open. A rough guess is there
is about 6-8 inches difference between these two windows. Don can't
The FBI actually measured them.
It's called SCIENCE. Don't be scared.
Post by John Corbett
comprehend that a witness could describe either window as wide open or
almost all the way open. He argues they could have only described the
sixth floor window that way even though there is absolutely no reason to
believe any of the witnesses would have taken note of just how open the
shooter's window was. Given what had just happened, it would not have
seemed the least bit important at the time. Yet because of this difference
between the two windows and the way the witnesses described the shooter's
window, Don is willing to dismiss the forensic evidence on the sixth
floor, the statements of the three TSBD employees who said they were on
the fifth floor, the photo and film that corroborate that, and all the
witnesses who said they shooter fired from the sixth floor.
Bud said it best a long time ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at
weighing evidence.
We are the only ones with evidence. All you have are insults.
donald willis
2020-08-25 14:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
For years, Don's position has been that the shooter (Oswald) fired shots
from a wide open window on the fifth floor as described in various ways by
No, stop mirepresenting what other posters say.
Don does not think that Oswald fired ANY shots that day.
Don does not believe the window was WIDE OPEN.
HE KNOWS that it was barely open.
Post by John Corbett
several witness, and that they could not have mistaken the halfway open
window on the sixth floor for a wide open window. In another thread, he
It was NOT HALFWAY. YOU are halfway and should be in a halfway house.
Post by John Corbett
acknowledged that the fifth floor window was not really all the way open
but almost all the way open as shown in this cropped version of the
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wbpfbawTP5o/XHdlhUS1r7I/AAAAAAABQ4A/f0w5fe6pWnIl6gKPd3KPprgTAhL0C_0yACLcBGAs/s5000/Dillard-Photo-11-22-63.jpg
If we compare the window on the sixth floor with the one right below it,
we can see there is not really that much difference between the two
windows. The sixth floor window is about halfway open and the fifth floor
You mean the way they were constructed? Wood, not steeel? Brilliant!
I uploaded the Dillard photo. Do you agree that it is authentic?
The 5th floor window was open almost all the way.
The 6th floor window was barely open. Not the same.
Thank you. "almost all the way" is exactly what witness Ronald Fischer
testified to.

dcw
Loading...