Discussion:
Oswald in the doorway: the new default
(too old to reply)
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-15 02:15:05 UTC
Permalink
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.

It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.

Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.

Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
did. He mentioned two other employees being around- in eyeshot of him:
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.

Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.

Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?

My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.

So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.

http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
Jason Burke
2016-07-15 18:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's what happened, Raff*. Deal with it.
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
Dang. This dude *really* thinks he's serious.

Sad.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-16 14:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's what happened, Raff*. Deal with it.
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
Dang. This dude *really* thinks he's serious.
Give him a break. He is arguing with himself, not just the LNers and the
CTers.
Post by Jason Burke
Sad.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
Mark OBLAZNEY
2016-07-16 16:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's what happened, Raff*. Deal with it.
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
Dang. This dude *really* thinks he's serious.
Sad.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
Hey, Raff*, we've been reading about your doctor friend Alan Burton.
Sounds like you two were REALLY uh, close.
mainframetech
2016-07-16 16:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's what happened, Raff*. Deal with it.
Nor necessary. Carolyn Arnold stated that she saw Oswald at about
12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom. At about the same time witnesses saw
2 men with a rifle in the 6th floor window. If Oswald tried to get to a
window on the 6th floor with the 2 men there, they would never let him
near the window they had staked out. So it proves that Oswald was
innocent and someone else was in the window on the 6th floor.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
WRONG! Seeing Oswald did NOT mean he was just getting to the lunchroom.
It could as easily mean that he had gone to the window to look out for
some reason and was returning. There are other possibilities.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Well of course there were other places he could be, and was!
Post by Jason Burke
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
no, he's right on that one. He just doesn't know where Oswald was
during the shooting.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
Dang. This dude *really* thinks he's serious.
Sad.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
that picture doesn't look anything like Oswald.

Chris
donald willis
2016-07-16 22:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's what happened, Raff*. Deal with it.
Post by Ralph Cinque
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
Dang. This dude *really* thinks he's serious.
Sad.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
John Reagor King
2016-07-21 04:49:54 UTC
Permalink
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way? And if so, what was
the cause of their error?
donald willis
2016-07-22 00:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-07-23 15:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Maybe so, but what about the additional statements of a long-narrow object
sticking out of *a* window, regardless of how "wide open" or not the
window was? Those witnesses could not have even *maybe* been referring to
Bonnie Ray Williams on the floor below, because he was not holding any
long, narrow object, and he was plainly visible. A few witnesses saying
that they saw a man in a "wide open" window comes nowhere even remotely
close to proving that there was definitely no one near a different,
half-open window, yet you stated it as if it was absolute proven fact that
no one was in the nest, when it quite obviously is not.
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-24 17:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Maybe so, but what about the additional statements of a long-narrow object
Physically impossible.
Post by John Reagor King
sticking out of *a* window, regardless of how "wide open" or not the
window was? Those witnesses could not have even *maybe* been referring to
Bonnie Ray Williams on the floor below, because he was not holding any
long, narrow object, and he was plainly visible. A few witnesses saying
that they saw a man in a "wide open" window comes nowhere even remotely
close to proving that there was definitely no one near a different,
half-open window, yet you stated it as if it was absolute proven fact that
no one was in the nest, when it quite obviously is not.
Well, Euins said the man was black. Maybe Williams was taking a leak.
;])
John Reagor King
2016-07-23 15:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Now wait a minute, Jackson? Do you mean Robert Jackson? If so, that is
NOT what he said. To the WC he very specifically said that he saw two
Negro men in a window "straining to see directly above them" and that in a
*different* window on the floor above them he saw a long, narrow object
being drawn back in the window, and he then very clearly said that the
window into which the object was being withdrawn was open only "halfway,"
the exact word he used. Since the very "nest" you were referring to was
indeed on the next floor above the floor where the Black men were looking
out of a wide open window, this witness, at least, was quite obviously
claiming that a human was indeed inside the very "nest" where you say no
human was at 12:30, since it would be rather difficult to imagine a long,
narrow object being pulled back inside without a human being there to pull
it back inside.

Malcolm Couch, in his WC testimony, didn't exactly say the window was
"wide open," period, with no qualification; instead his exact words were:

"It was open. To say that it was half or three-quarters open. I wouldn't
say. My impression was that it was all the way open - but that was an
impression."

Plain as day, he was at least admitting a *possibility* that the window
wasn't open to the fullest extent.

But here again, he also described the long, narrow object, and he could
not have even *maybe* be confusing that with the three men on the fifth
floor, since none of them were holding such an object; thus this is yet
another witness who is obviously referring to a *different* person than
those three men, whether or not he caught sight of the person himself or
not.

But back to Jackson: I am, shall we say, "writhing" with curiosity about
where you're getting your claim that he said the window through which the
long, narrow was sticking was "wide open." You can't even *maybe* be
getting it from his WC testimony. Is there some other document that I
haven't seen yet where he specifically used the exact words "wide open" or
"all the way open" or anything of equivalent meaning to describe the
window into which the long, narrow object was being withdrawn?
donald willis
2016-07-24 17:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there
isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was
not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to
be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Now wait a minute, Jackson? Do you mean Robert Jackson? If so, that is
NOT what he said. To the WC he very specifically said that he saw two
Negro men in a window "straining to see directly above them" and that in a
*different* window on the floor above them he saw a long, narrow object
being drawn back in the window, and he then very clearly said that the
window into which the object was being withdrawn was open only "halfway,"
the exact word he used. Since the very "nest" you were referring to was
indeed on the next floor above the floor where the Black men were looking
out of a wide open window, this witness, at least, was quite obviously
claiming that a human was indeed inside the very "nest" where you say no
human was at 12:30, since it would be rather difficult to imagine a long,
narrow object being pulled back inside without a human being there to pull
it back inside.
Malcolm Couch, in his WC testimony, didn't exactly say the window was
"It was open. To say that it was half or three-quarters open. I wouldn't
say. My impression was that it was all the way open - but that was an
impression."
Plain as day, he was at least admitting a *possibility* that the window
wasn't open to the fullest extent.
But here again, he also described the long, narrow object, and he could
not have even *maybe* be confusing that with the three men on the fifth
floor, since none of them were holding such an object; thus this is yet
another witness who is obviously referring to a *different* person than
those three men, whether or not he caught sight of the person himself or
not.
But back to Jackson: I am, shall we say, "writhing" with curiosity about
where you're getting your claim that he said the window through which the
long, narrow was sticking was "wide open." You can't even *maybe* be
getting it from his WC testimony.
WRONG! (To quote another poster here) You're more than maybe wrong.

First, note that Specter sees that Jackson (during, yes, his WC
testimony!) has placed his "A" for "where the rifle was" on the "westerly
half of the first double window"--in other words, the "second window from
the end" (where Patrolman Hill radioed at 12:37 said that the shooting
came from. Right window, wrong floor.

But wait, Mr King. Jackson goes further. He specifies what the window
looked like from where "the rifle protruded":

Specter: "What is your best recollection as to how far open [the window]
was at that time?"

Jackson: "I would say that it was open like that window there, HALFWAY."

Now pay close attention...

Specter: "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the WESTERNMOST
portion of the building open HALFWAY as you have described it." (v2p159)

Check CE 348, if you can. In order to respond, you must, actually....
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.

So, in sum, Jackson indicated a wide open window second from the end,
which would be of course on the fifth floor since the corresponding window
on the 6th floor wasn't open.

Granted, Jackson made a mistake. Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.

Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-25 17:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Now wait a minute, Jackson? Do you mean Robert Jackson? If so, that is
NOT what he said. To the WC he very specifically said that he saw two
Negro men in a window "straining to see directly above them" and that in a
*different* window on the floor above them he saw a long, narrow object
being drawn back in the window, and he then very clearly said that the
window into which the object was being withdrawn was open only "halfway,"
the exact word he used. Since the very "nest" you were referring to was
indeed on the next floor above the floor where the Black men were looking
out of a wide open window, this witness, at least, was quite obviously
claiming that a human was indeed inside the very "nest" where you say no
human was at 12:30, since it would be rather difficult to imagine a long,
narrow object being pulled back inside without a human being there to pull
it back inside.
Malcolm Couch, in his WC testimony, didn't exactly say the window was
"It was open. To say that it was half or three-quarters open. I wouldn't
say. My impression was that it was all the way open - but that was an
impression."
Plain as day, he was at least admitting a *possibility* that the window
wasn't open to the fullest extent.
But here again, he also described the long, narrow object, and he could
not have even *maybe* be confusing that with the three men on the fifth
floor, since none of them were holding such an object; thus this is yet
another witness who is obviously referring to a *different* person than
those three men, whether or not he caught sight of the person himself or
not.
But back to Jackson: I am, shall we say, "writhing" with curiosity about
where you're getting your claim that he said the window through which the
long, narrow was sticking was "wide open." You can't even *maybe* be
getting it from his WC testimony.
WRONG! (To quote another poster here) You're more than maybe wrong.
First, note that Specter sees that Jackson (during, yes, his WC
testimony!) has placed his "A" for "where the rifle was" on the "westerly
half of the first double window"--in other words, the "second window from
the end" (where Patrolman Hill radioed at 12:37 said that the shooting
came from. Right window, wrong floor.
But wait, Mr King. Jackson goes further. He specifies what the window
Specter: "What is your best recollection as to how far open [the window]
was at that time?"
Jackson: "I would say that it was open like that window there, HALFWAY."
Now pay close attention...
Specter: "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the WESTERNMOST
portion of the building open HALFWAY as you have described it." (v2p159)
Check CE 348, if you can. In order to respond, you must, actually....
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.
Only the bottom half was open.
Post by donald willis
So, in sum, Jackson indicated a wide open window second from the end,
which would be of course on the fifth floor since the corresponding window
on the 6th floor wasn't open.
Granted, Jackson made a mistake. Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.
Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....
dcw
John Reagor King
2016-07-26 01:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there
isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he
was
not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he
had to
be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way?
Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson, & Couch all said that they saw someone
or something at a wide open window. The "nest" window was not wide open.
Now wait a minute, Jackson? Do you mean Robert Jackson? If so, that is
NOT what he said. To the WC he very specifically said that he saw two
Negro men in a window "straining to see directly above them" and that in a
*different* window on the floor above them he saw a long, narrow object
being drawn back in the window, and he then very clearly said that the
window into which the object was being withdrawn was open only "halfway,"
the exact word he used. Since the very "nest" you were referring to was
indeed on the next floor above the floor where the Black men were looking
out of a wide open window, this witness, at least, was quite obviously
claiming that a human was indeed inside the very "nest" where you say no
human was at 12:30, since it would be rather difficult to imagine a long,
narrow object being pulled back inside without a human being there to pull
it back inside.
Malcolm Couch, in his WC testimony, didn't exactly say the window was
"It was open. To say that it was half or three-quarters open. I wouldn't
say. My impression was that it was all the way open - but that was an
impression."
Plain as day, he was at least admitting a *possibility* that the window
wasn't open to the fullest extent.
But here again, he also described the long, narrow object, and he could
not have even *maybe* be confusing that with the three men on the fifth
floor, since none of them were holding such an object; thus this is yet
another witness who is obviously referring to a *different* person than
those three men, whether or not he caught sight of the person himself or
not.
But back to Jackson: I am, shall we say, "writhing" with curiosity about
where you're getting your claim that he said the window through which the
long, narrow was sticking was "wide open." You can't even *maybe* be
getting it from his WC testimony.
WRONG! (To quote another poster here) You're more than maybe wrong.
First, note that Specter sees that Jackson (during, yes, his WC
testimony!) has placed his "A" for "where the rifle was" on the "westerly
half of the first double window"--in other words, the "second window from
the end" (where Patrolman Hill radioed at 12:37 said that the shooting
came from. Right window, wrong floor.
But wait, Mr King. Jackson goes further. He specifies what the window
Specter: "What is your best recollection as to how far open [the window]
was at that time?"
Jackson: "I would say that it was open like that window there, HALFWAY."
Now pay close attention...
Specter: "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the WESTERNMOST
portion of the building open HALFWAY as you have described it." (v2p159)
Check CE 348, if you can. In order to respond, you must, actually....
Yes:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_348
.pdf
Post by donald willis
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.
And do you yourself see that Jackson marked the ***EASTERNMOST*** windows
of the fifth and sixth floors on that very document, and that there are no
marks at all anywhere near the ***WESTERNMOST*** windows of those floors?
Rather obviously, Specter's use of the word "westernmost" was a mere slip
of the tongue, a common, everyday phenomenon, similar to the common joke,
"your other right" when someone accidentally says "right" when meaning
"left," so someone ought to have said to Specter, "Don't you mean your
other westernmost?" ;-)

And did you miss the part, just a few sentences later, where Jackson
himself clarified this?

"Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the corner of the
building, the east."

The east corner, in other words.

And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open" since those are not the only relevant statements; the
position of the long, narrow object in relation to the men on the fifth
floor is also quite relevant, obviously.

And you yourself also cited Ronald Fischer, and although, as you've said,
he claimed the window to be all the way open rather than halfway, he still
specifically said the window was one of the easternmost windows.

Robert Edwards, whom you also cited, was also quite clear that it was
east, not west; when asked what part of the floor he was talking about
when viewing the building's south side he said, "To my right," which would
obviously be east.

Malcolm Couch also said east:

**********

Mr. BELIN - And when you say, "the far right" -
Mr. COUCH - That would be the far east.
Mr. BELIN - The far east of what side of the building?
Mr. COUCH - The south side of the building.

**********

You keep harping on trivial witness errors such as whether the window was
wide open or not, and ignoring where nearly all of them said the window
was: at the east end of the south side of the building.

Also some of them said fifth floor instead of sixth. But we've got just a
few too many witnesses saying that, whatever floor the long, narrow object
was on, it was on the floor *above* the floor where the other men were
looking out, and it was at or near the same end of the building where they
were, either directly above them or almost directly above them.

Amos Euins was asked to mark, on CE 366, the window in which he saw the
"pipe":

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_366
.pdf

I see a whitish check mark slightly below and to the right of the
easternmost window of the fifth floor. Wrong floor, sure, but as I've
already said, he couldn't have even *maybe* been referring to the TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, since none of them were holding such an
object.
Post by donald willis
So, in sum, Jackson indicated a wide open window second from the end,
which would be of course on the fifth floor since the corresponding window
on the 6th floor wasn't open.
Plain as day on the document you yourself cited, CE 348, Jackson is seen
to have marked the easternmost windows of the fifth and sixth floors.
He was asked to mark the window with the rifle with an A and the window
below with the men with a B. Both marks are plainly at the easternmost
ends of those floors.
Post by donald willis
Granted, Jackson made a mistake.
No, Arlen Spector made a mistake when he said "westernmost."
Post by donald willis
Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.
Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....
My eyes are apparently more open than yours. ;-)

Now let's go back to your original statement that I first objected to;
your exact words were:

"No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63...."

You stated that as absolute, irrefutably proven fact, which it quite
obviously isn't.
donald willis
2016-07-27 00:53:57 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut /WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
Post by donald willis
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.
And do you yourself see that Jackson marked the ***EASTERNMOST*** windows
of the fifth and sixth floors on that very document, and that there are no
marks at all anywhere near the ***WESTERNMOST*** windows of those floors?
Jackson was not asked to mark the latter.
Post by John Reagor King
Rather obviously, Specter's use of the word "westernmost" was a mere slip
of the tongue, a common, everyday phenomenon,
It was not, Mr. King. Specter goes on to clarify: "My last comment, as
to the description of your last window [the "westernmost" window], is ONLY
[emphasis mine) for the purpose of what you have said in identifying A
window to show how far open THE window was."

He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.

Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....

"similar to the common joke,
Post by John Reagor King
"your other right" when someone accidentally says "right" when meaning
"left," so someone ought to have said to Specter, "Don't you mean your
other westernmost?" ;-)
And did you miss the part, just a few sentences later, where Jackson
himself clarified this?
"Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the corner of the
building, the east."
The east corner, in other words.
"Corner" has nothing to do with how wide the window was open....
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....

since those are not the only relevant statements; the
Post by John Reagor King
position of the long, narrow object in relation to the men on the fifth
floor is also quite relevant, obviously.
And you yourself also cited Ronald Fischer, and although, as you've said,
he claimed the window to be all the way open rather than halfway, he still
specifically said the window was one of the easternmost windows.
He seemed unsure whether he saw his man on the fifth or sixth floor. But
he insisted on "wide open", or fifth.

And don't get misled by Jackson/Specter. This is not about east or west,
just about the opening of the window....
Post by John Reagor King
Robert Edwards, whom you also cited, was also quite clear that it was
east, not west; when asked what part of the floor he was talking about
when viewing the building's south side he said, "To my right," which would
obviously be east.
See above
Post by John Reagor King
**********
Mr. BELIN - And when you say, "the far right" -
Mr. COUCH - That would be the far east.
Mr. BELIN - The far east of what side of the building?
Mr. COUCH - The south side of the building.
**********
You keep harping on trivial witness errors such as whether the window was
wide open or not, and ignoring where nearly all of them said the window
was: at the east end of the south side of the building.
Neither I nor Jackson nor Specter was saying the rifle was at the east
end! That window was strictly so Jackson could show how wide the window
was open in which he saw that object....
Post by John Reagor King
Also some of them said fifth floor instead of sixth. But we've got just a
few too many witnesses saying that, whatever floor the long, narrow object
was on, it was on the floor *above* the floor where the other men were
looking out
Fischer & Edwards were NOT one of those "few too many"--one or both said
that they saw NO ONE in the windows below the suspect....

, and it was at or near the same end of the building where they
Post by John Reagor King
were, either directly above them or almost directly above them.
Amos Euins was asked to mark, on CE 366, the window in which he saw the
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_366
.pdf
I see a whitish check mark slightly below and to the right of the
easternmost window of the fifth floor. Wrong floor, sure, but as I've
already said, he couldn't have even *maybe* been referring to the TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, since none of them were holding such an
object.
He was obviously mistaking Williams for the shooter, Williams who was the
only one of the three visible in the Powell Polaroid, and the man who was
in the "second window from the end", as per the 12:37 police-radio
transmission. Apparently--and I'm not the only one to say this--Euins saw
someone with a rifle, looked away for a few seconds, then looked back,
after the shooting, and saw only Williams in the area up there.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
So, in sum, Jackson indicated a wide open window second from the end,
which would be of course on the fifth floor since the corresponding window
on the 6th floor wasn't open.
Plain as day on the document you yourself cited, CE 348, Jackson is seen
to have marked the easternmost windows of the fifth and sixth floors.
He was asked to mark the window with the rifle with an A and the window
below with the men with a B. Both marks are plainly at the easternmost
ends of those floors.
Post by donald willis
Granted, Jackson made a mistake.
No, Arlen Spector made a mistake when he said "westernmost."
Again, WRONG. See above
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.
Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....
My eyes are apparently more open than yours. ;-)
Now let's go back to your original statement that I first objected to;
"No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63...."
You stated that as absolute, irrefutably proven fact, which it quite
obviously isn't.
And you're basing your conclusion on a witness who first marked the window
to the west of the "nest" window... a witness who told reporters that the
gunman was "colored"... and several witnesses who described a wide-open
window. Very conclusive!

dcw
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-28 03:01:01 UTC
Permalink
The only thing about this unrelated discussion is that it keeps bumping
"Oswald in the doorway: the new default" into view.

And since then I have made a new collage of Oswald and Doorman that
cinches the man, the clothes, and the stare. So, it's a trifecta.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/i-have-added-this-new-compelling.html

Go ahead; keep denying frank, stark, reality. A lotta good it's going to
do you.
Jason Burke
2016-07-28 22:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
The only thing about this unrelated discussion is that it keeps bumping
"Oswald in the doorway: the new default" into view.
And since then I have made a new collage of Oswald and Doorman that
cinches the man, the clothes, and the stare. So, it's a trifecta.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/07/i-have-added-this-new-compelling.html
Go ahead; keep denying frank, stark, reality. A lotta good it's going to
do you.
Gosh, Raff*! You've only got, what, 322+ million people left to convince
in the US alone.

Heck, you might try start with just one. Yourself excluded, of course.
Assuming you actually believe what you say.

Personally, I gotta agree with the 19sep15 post on:

http://www.oswaldinthedoorway.com/

And I doubt I'm alone.
John Reagor King
2016-07-28 19:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
Post by donald willis
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.
And do you yourself see that Jackson marked the ***EASTERNMOST*** windows
of the fifth and sixth floors on that very document, and that there are no
marks at all anywhere near the ***WESTERNMOST*** windows of those floors?
Jackson was not asked to mark the latter.
He was asked to mark both the window in which he saw the two TSBD
employees and the window into which he saw the long, narrow object being
withdrawn, and he marked the easternmost windows of the fifth and sixth
floors as being those two windows.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Rather obviously, Specter's use of the word "westernmost" was a mere slip
of the tongue, a common, everyday phenomenon,
It was not, Mr. King. Specter goes on to clarify: "My last comment, as
to the description of your last window [the "westernmost" window], is ONLY
[emphasis mine) for the purpose of what you have said in identifying A
window to show how far open THE window was."
Then, if what you say is true, he was *not* referring to either the window
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
Post by donald willis
"similar to the common joke,
Post by John Reagor King
"your other right" when someone accidentally says "right" when meaning
"left," so someone ought to have said to Specter, "Don't you mean your
other westernmost?" ;-)
And did you miss the part, just a few sentences later, where Jackson
himself clarified this?
"Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the corner of the
building, the east."
The east corner, in other words.
"Corner" has nothing to do with how wide the window was open....
Irrelevant to your original claim that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30,
since you were quite obviously referring to what has been called, for more
than half a century, the "sniper's nest" at the easternmost window on the
sixth floor, the very window from which Oswald allegedly fired at the
limousine.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
Post by donald willis
since those are not the only relevant statements; the
Post by John Reagor King
position of the long, narrow object in relation to the men on the fifth
floor is also quite relevant, obviously.
And you yourself also cited Ronald Fischer, and although, as you've said,
he claimed the window to be all the way open rather than halfway, he still
specifically said the window was one of the easternmost windows.
He seemed unsure whether he saw his man on the fifth or sixth floor. But
he insisted on "wide open", or fifth.
And don't get misled by Jackson/Specter. This is not about east or west,
just about the opening of the window....
No, it is about whether your original claim of no one being in the
"nest" comes anywhere even remotely close to being provably true.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
**********
Mr. BELIN - And when you say, "the far right" -
Mr. COUCH - That would be the far east.
Mr. BELIN - The far east of what side of the building?
Mr. COUCH - The south side of the building.
**********
You keep harping on trivial witness errors such as whether the window was
wide open or not, and ignoring where nearly all of them said the window
was: at the east end of the south side of the building.
Neither I nor Jackson nor Specter was saying the rifle was at the east
end! That window was strictly so Jackson could show how wide the window
was open in which he saw that object....
**********

Mr. SPECTER - Will you mark the window where the rifle was with an "A"
and would you please mark the window where you have identified the men
below with a "B."

Jackson was not asked to mark just any window to show how wide open it
was, he was asked very specifically to mark the window in which he saw the
two TSBD employees and also the window in which he saw the "rifle" and in
both cases he marked the easternmost windows of those two floors.
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Also some of them said fifth floor instead of sixth. But we've got just a
few too many witnesses saying that, whatever floor the long, narrow object
was on, it was on the floor *above* the floor where the other men were
looking out
Fischer & Edwards were NOT one of those "few too many"--one or both said
that they saw NO ONE in the windows below the suspect....
I didn't say they did. I never said that every one of the witnesses who
said they saw the long, narrow object also said that they noticed the TSBD
employees on the floor below. There were also witnesses who only noticed
the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who did not additionally notice the
long, narrow object sticking out of the window on the floor above them.
Naturally, different people are going to notice different things. It's
still a few too many witnesses noticing one or both of these things for it
to be at all plausible that there was definitely no one in the "nest" at
12:30, as you claimed several days ago.
Post by donald willis
, and it was at or near the same end of the building where they
Post by John Reagor King
were, either directly above them or almost directly above them.
Amos Euins was asked to mark, on CE 366, the window in which he saw the
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_366
.pdf
I see a whitish check mark slightly below and to the right of the
easternmost window of the fifth floor. Wrong floor, sure, but as I've
already said, he couldn't have even *maybe* been referring to the TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, since none of them were holding such an
object.
He was obviously mistaking Williams for the shooter,
Williams was not holding a long, narrow object, so your usage of the
word "obviously" is rather unconventional.
Post by donald willis
Williams who was the
only one of the three visible in the Powell Polaroid, and the man who was
in the "second window from the end", as per the 12:37 police-radio
transmission. Apparently--and I'm not the only one to say this--Euins saw
someone with a rifle, looked away for a few seconds, then looked back,
after the shooting, and saw only Williams in the area up there.
Nevertheless, Euins plainly described the long, narrow object, so even if
he was a bit confused, since we know it could not have been Williams
holding that object, it *obviously* (correct usage) was someone else, even
if what you say is true about his confusion. You're once again harping on
mere trivialities, and you've just admitted in your above statement that
"Euins saw someone with a rifle," your exact words. And if that rifle was
even *maybe* in the nest window, then that all by itself renders your
original statement false. Here are your exact words again:

"No one was in the 'nest' at 12:30 11/22/63...."

You inserted no qualification whatsoever, not even the word "probably" or
"almost certainly," you simply said no one was there at that time, period,
when you have failed to prove that.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.
Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....
My eyes are apparently more open than yours. ;-)
Now let's go back to your original statement that I first objected to;
"No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63...."
You stated that as absolute, irrefutably proven fact, which it quite
obviously isn't.
And you're basing your conclusion on a witness who first marked the window
to the west of the "nest" window...a witness who told reporters that the
gunman was "colored"... and several witnesses who described a wide-open
window. Very conclusive!
Ah, but wait: I NEVER said in this thread that it was conclusively proven
that there WAS someone in the "nest" at 12:30, I have merely challenged
your claim that there WASN'T anyone in the "nest" at 12:30. You're the
one who made that as an absolute factual statement in this thread; I have
never made the reverse claim as an absolute factual statement in this
thread. In fact, in my entire posting history in this newsgroup, dating
back to October 6, 2002, I do not recall *ever* making such a statement in
a single one of the more than two-thousand articles I've posted here.
Sure, plenty of times I've come very close to that, but it has always been
with at least some qualification, such as saying that it is a
near-certainty that the shots were fired from that window, but I've never
once just flatly stated that the shots simply *were* fired from that
window, period.
donald willis
2016-07-30 03:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
Post by donald willis
Done? You see, then, that Specter & Jackson's "halfway" is actually WIDE
OPEN, as the westernmost window on the sixth floor in CE 348 was! They
called it "halfway" because the top half of such casement windows does not
open.
And do you yourself see that Jackson marked the ***EASTERNMOST*** windows
of the fifth and sixth floors on that very document, and that there are no
marks at all anywhere near the ***WESTERNMOST*** windows of those floors?
Jackson was not asked to mark the latter.
He was asked to mark both the window in which he saw the two TSBD
employees and the window into which he saw the long, narrow object being
withdrawn, and he marked the easternmost windows of the fifth and sixth
floors as being those two windows.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Rather obviously, Specter's use of the word "westernmost" was a mere slip
of the tongue, a common, everyday phenomenon,
It was not, Mr. King. Specter goes on to clarify: "My last comment, as
to the description of your last window [the "westernmost" window], is ONLY
[emphasis mine) for the purpose of what you have said in identifying A
window to show how far open THE window was."
Then, if what you say is true
It's Specter who's saying it.

, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
"similar to the common joke,
Post by John Reagor King
"your other right" when someone accidentally says "right" when meaning
"left," so someone ought to have said to Specter, "Don't you mean your
other westernmost?" ;-)
And did you miss the part, just a few sentences later, where Jackson
himself clarified this?
"Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the corner of the
building, the east."
The east corner, in other words.
"Corner" has nothing to do with how wide the window was open....
Irrelevant to your original claim
OK, but you mistook my/Specter's/Jackson's references to the westernmost
window, tho that seems to have been cleared up, to the satisfaction and
delight of all....

that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30,
Post by John Reagor King
since you were quite obviously referring to what has been called, for more
than half a century, the "sniper's nest" at the easternmost window on the
sixth floor, the very window from which Oswald allegedly fired at the
limousine.
Very fair, that "allegedly"
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
since those are not the only relevant statements; the
Post by John Reagor King
position of the long, narrow object in relation to the men on the fifth
floor is also quite relevant, obviously.
And you yourself also cited Ronald Fischer, and although, as you've said,
he claimed the window to be all the way open rather than halfway, he still
specifically said the window was one of the easternmost windows.
He seemed unsure whether he saw his man on the fifth or sixth floor. But
he insisted on "wide open", or fifth.
And don't get misled by Jackson/Specter. This is not about east or west,
just about the opening of the window....
No, it is about whether your original claim of no one being in the
"nest" comes anywhere even remotely close to being provably true.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
**********
Mr. BELIN - And when you say, "the far right" -
Mr. COUCH - That would be the far east.
Mr. BELIN - The far east of what side of the building?
Mr. COUCH - The south side of the building.
**********
You keep harping on trivial witness errors such as whether the window was
wide open or not, and ignoring where nearly all of them said the window
was: at the east end of the south side of the building.
Neither I nor Jackson nor Specter was saying the rifle was at the east
end! That window was strictly so Jackson could show how wide the window
was open in which he saw that object....
**********
Mr. SPECTER - Will you mark the window where the rifle was with an "A"
and would you please mark the window where you have identified the men
below with a "B."
Jackson was not asked to mark just any window to show how wide open it
was, he was asked very specifically to mark the window in which he saw the
two TSBD employees and also the window in which he saw the "rifle" and in
both cases he marked the easternmost windows of those two floors.
Yes, given a second chance, he did mark the east half of the last window
on the east side! Or at least verbally indicate which half he meant....
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open. Why, he might
almost have been Hill's 12:37 witness who said the rifle was in the
"second window from the end" in the upper right hand corner of the TSBD!
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Also some of them said fifth floor instead of sixth. But we've got just a
few too many witnesses saying that, whatever floor the long, narrow object
was on, it was on the floor *above* the floor where the other men were
looking out
Fischer & Edwards were NOT one of those "few too many"--one or both said
that they saw NO ONE in the windows below the suspect....
I didn't say they did. I never said that every one of the witnesses who
said they saw the long, narrow object also said that they noticed the TSBD
employees on the floor below. There were also witnesses who only noticed
the TSBD employees on the fifth floor who did not additionally notice the
long, narrow object sticking out of the window on the floor above them.
Naturally, different people are going to notice different things. It's
still a few too many witnesses noticing one or both of these things for it
to be at all plausible that there was definitely no one in the "nest" at
12:30, as you claimed several days ago.
Post by donald willis
, and it was at or near the same end of the building where they
Post by John Reagor King
were, either directly above them or almost directly above them.
Amos Euins was asked to mark, on CE 366, the window in which he saw the
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_366
.pdf
I see a whitish check mark slightly below and to the right of the
easternmost window of the fifth floor. Wrong floor, sure, but as I've
already said, he couldn't have even *maybe* been referring to the TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, since none of them were holding such an
object.
He was obviously mistaking Williams for the shooter,
Williams was not holding a long, narrow object, so your usage of the
word "obviously" is rather unconventional.
Post by donald willis
Williams who was the
only one of the three visible in the Powell Polaroid, and the man who was
in the "second window from the end", as per the 12:37 police-radio
transmission. Apparently--and I'm not the only one to say this--Euins saw
someone with a rifle, looked away for a few seconds, then looked back,
after the shooting, and saw only Williams in the area up there.
Nevertheless, Euins plainly described the long, narrow object, so even if
he was a bit confused, since we know it could not have been Williams
holding that object, it *obviously* (correct usage) was someone else, even
if what you say is true about his confusion. You're once again harping on
mere trivialities
Trivial to cover up where a witness (or two or three) thought they saw the
rifle? True, this is a world which rubs off the rough edges of such
confusion, but truth has as much claim on us as does expedience....


, and you've just admitted in your above statement that
Post by John Reagor King
"Euins saw someone with a rifle," your exact words. And if that rifle was
even *maybe* in the nest window, then that all by itself renders your
"No one was in the 'nest' at 12:30 11/22/63...."
You inserted no qualification whatsoever, not even the word "probably" or
"almost certainly," you simply said no one was there at that time, period,
when you have failed to prove that.
Corrected above
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Williams wasn't a shooter, but Jackson &
Hill's 2nd-window witness both ID'd him as such since he was the person
most visible just after the shooting in that area of the building.
Now, you can stop writhing and keep your eyes open....
My eyes are apparently more open than yours. ;-)
Now let's go back to your original statement that I first objected to;
"No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63...."
You stated that as absolute, irrefutably proven fact, which it quite
obviously isn't.
And you're basing your conclusion on a witness who first marked the window
to the west of the "nest" window...a witness who told reporters that the
gunman was "colored"... and several witnesses who described a wide-open
window. Very conclusive!
Ah, but wait: I NEVER said in this thread that it was conclusively proven
that there WAS someone in the "nest" at 12:30, I have merely challenged
your claim that there WASN'T anyone in the "nest" at 12:30. You're the
one who made that as an absolute factual statement in this thread; I have
never made the reverse claim as an absolute factual statement in this
thread. In fact, in my entire posting history in this newsgroup, dating
back to October 6, 2002, I do not recall *ever* making such a statement in
a single one of the more than two-thousand articles I've posted here.
Sure, plenty of times I've come very close to that, but it has always been
with at least some qualification, such as saying that it is a
near-certainty that the shots were fired from that window, but I've never
once just flatly stated that the shots simply *were* fired from that
window, period.dcw
Granted, if not fully investigated--you did say "allegedly" here....

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-07-31 01:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Mmhmm. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Well, that's slightly better anyway. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
donald willis
2016-08-01 02:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Mmhmm. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Well, that's slightly better anyway. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-08-02 13:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
Yes, yes, yes, I went through many of the "the shells were planted" claims
years ago; all that is by now old, old news to me. But I don't recall
anything even remotely approaching irrefutable proof that they were
planted there. And nowhere near all of these witnesses claimed that Fritz
pocketed the shells *before* they were photographed, and we've got Luke
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
attention:

**********

The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.

**********

He said much the same thing to the WC:

**********

And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.

**********

We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
he was at that moment almost directly below the location where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed. And whether those shells were "planted" or not, is there
any other photograph proven to have been taken that day and no other day
which depicts even one rifle shell anywhere else in Dealey Plaza, inside
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.

Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.

James Jarman named only one direction for all or any gunshot sounds:
below and to his left.

Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.

James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.

Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."

Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.

Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.

Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.

Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.

Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.

I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)

Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.

Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.

Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.

Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.

Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.

Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?

So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?

Oh come now.

Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.

But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.

But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
donald willis
2016-08-03 02:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
Yes, yes, yes, I went through many of the "the shells were planted" claims
years ago; all that is by now old, old news to me. But I don't recall
anything even remotely approaching irrefutable proof that they were
planted there. And nowhere near all of these witnesses claimed that Fritz
pocketed the shells *before* they were photographed
I believe only Alyea claimed that they were "pocketed". Meanwhile, Fritz
all but denied that he picked the hulls up in the depository.

, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)

where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!

dcw (to be continued, probably)
John Reagor King
2016-08-04 01:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building. Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building, I do not
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.

But:

I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
name on it:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm

Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.

I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.

If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period? I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
these words:

"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."

Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken at each of these times:

12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.

Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.

Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.

So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.


Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.

I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.

Still nothing even remotely close to irrefutable proof that the shells
were planted. Not even close. In fact, there is a *larger* amount of
evidence indicating that they were *not* planted than the amount of
evidence which seems to suggest that they were planted.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-05 01:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
Unless the perps were right there among their own people.
Remember that Oswald was let go simply because he worked there.
Post by John Reagor King
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building. Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building, I do not
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
And yet Curry was giving interviews where he said they were still looking
for a black man who helped Oswald. And Fritz was charging Frazier with
being an accomplice.

I don't know if you've ever seen real conspiracies in real life, but you
don't need all 100 people in the same room at the same time to prove they
were all part of the conspiracy. Ever hear of the Mafia? Or the CIA. CIA
rarely sends out 1,000 assassins just to kill one person.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period? I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
But wasn't he on TV?
Post by John Reagor King
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
In case you haven't been keeping up with physics and astronomy we have
only recently learned that time is relative. And in case you didn't know
it the DPD clocks were off by almost a minute.
Post by John Reagor King
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
No. No one had a wristwatch with the right time. Remember the clock on
the roof? Did that have the right time?
Post by John Reagor King
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
Oh goody, goody, more anachronisms. Maybe it was the first portable
atomic watch. Or maybe they had cell phones which updated the time every
second from the NIST-F1 atomic clock in Colorado. Jeez, this is fun.
Post by John Reagor King
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings. You got
nothing better to do this summer.
Post by John Reagor King
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
Maybe if you were smarter you could.
Post by John Reagor King
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
Maybe he couldn't remember the exact second. Some people can remember
exact minutes, but it is much harder to remember the exact second. The
moment you try to, it's gone.
Post by John Reagor King
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
Lying is a very strong word. How about confused?
Post by John Reagor King
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
Still nothing even remotely close to irrefutable proof that the shells
were planted. Not even close. In fact, there is a *larger* amount of
Again, Tom Alyea. Was HE also lying? Is that the only way that WC
defenders can discredit witnesses?
Post by John Reagor King
evidence indicating that they were *not* planted than the amount of
evidence which seems to suggest that they were planted.
donald willis
2016-08-06 00:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
Unless the perps were right there among their own people.
Remember that Oswald was let go simply because he worked there.
Post by John Reagor King
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building. Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building, I do not
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
And yet Curry was giving interviews where he said they were still looking
for a black man who helped Oswald. And Fritz was charging Frazier with
being an accomplice.
I don't know if you've ever seen real conspiracies in real life, but you
don't need all 100 people in the same room at the same time to prove they
were all part of the conspiracy. Ever hear of the Mafia? Or the CIA. CIA
rarely sends out 1,000 assassins just to kill one person.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period? I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
But wasn't he on TV?
Post by John Reagor King
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
In case you haven't been keeping up with physics and astronomy we have
only recently learned that time is relative. And in case you didn't know
it the DPD clocks were off by almost a minute.
Post by John Reagor King
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
No. No one had a wristwatch with the right time. Remember the clock on
the roof? Did that have the right time?
Post by John Reagor King
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
Oh goody, goody, more anachronisms. Maybe it was the first portable
atomic watch. Or maybe they had cell phones which updated the time every
second from the NIST-F1 atomic clock in Colorado. Jeez, this is fun.
Post by John Reagor King
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings.
Walt Cakebread could do that. Or said he could....

You got
Post by Anthony Marsh
nothing better to do this summer.
Post by John Reagor King
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
Maybe if you were smarter you could.
Post by John Reagor King
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
Maybe he couldn't remember the exact second. Some people can remember
exact minutes, but it is much harder to remember the exact second. The
moment you try to, it's gone.
Post by John Reagor King
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
Lying is a very strong word. How about confused?
Post by John Reagor King
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
Still nothing even remotely close to irrefutable proof that the shells
were planted. Not even close. In fact, there is a *larger* amount of
Again, Tom Alyea. Was HE also lying? Is that the only way that WC
defenders can discredit witnesses?
Post by John Reagor King
evidence indicating that they were *not* planted than the amount of
evidence which seems to suggest that they were planted.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-07 17:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
Unless the perps were right there among their own people.
Remember that Oswald was let go simply because he worked there.
Post by John Reagor King
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building. Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building, I do not
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
And yet Curry was giving interviews where he said they were still looking
for a black man who helped Oswald. And Fritz was charging Frazier with
being an accomplice.
I don't know if you've ever seen real conspiracies in real life, but you
don't need all 100 people in the same room at the same time to prove they
were all part of the conspiracy. Ever hear of the Mafia? Or the CIA. CIA
rarely sends out 1,000 assassins just to kill one person.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period? I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
But wasn't he on TV?
Post by John Reagor King
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
In case you haven't been keeping up with physics and astronomy we have
only recently learned that time is relative. And in case you didn't know
it the DPD clocks were off by almost a minute.
Post by John Reagor King
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
No. No one had a wristwatch with the right time. Remember the clock on
the roof? Did that have the right time?
Post by John Reagor King
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
Oh goody, goody, more anachronisms. Maybe it was the first portable
atomic watch. Or maybe they had cell phones which updated the time every
second from the NIST-F1 atomic clock in Colorado. Jeez, this is fun.
Post by John Reagor King
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings.
Walt Cakebread could do that. Or said he could....
You mean Walt Brown. At least he tried.
I once used them to help Robert Cutler revise his timing of the photographs.
Post by donald willis
You got
Post by Anthony Marsh
nothing better to do this summer.
Post by John Reagor King
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
Maybe if you were smarter you could.
Post by John Reagor King
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
Maybe he couldn't remember the exact second. Some people can remember
exact minutes, but it is much harder to remember the exact second. The
moment you try to, it's gone.
Post by John Reagor King
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
Lying is a very strong word. How about confused?
Post by John Reagor King
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
Still nothing even remotely close to irrefutable proof that the shells
were planted. Not even close. In fact, there is a *larger* amount of
Again, Tom Alyea. Was HE also lying? Is that the only way that WC
defenders can discredit witnesses?
Post by John Reagor King
evidence indicating that they were *not* planted than the amount of
evidence which seems to suggest that they were planted.
donald willis
2016-08-08 15:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
On 8/3/2016 9:44 PM, John Reagor Kin cut the wearer of the wristwatch being
Post by John Reagor King
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings.
Walt Cakebread could do that. Or said he could....
You mean Walt Brown. At least he tried.
I once used them to help Robert Cutler revise his timing of the photographs.
No, I meant W. Cakebread. Brown, too, apparently, though. Walt C held
that the shadows on the building indicated that one of the post-shooting
images--I think the Powell, or maybe one of the Dillards, or both--were
taken *before* the shooting....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-09 01:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
On 8/3/2016 9:44 PM, John Reagor Kin cut the wearer of the wristwatch being
Post by John Reagor King
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings.
Walt Cakebread could do that. Or said he could....
You mean Walt Brown. At least he tried.
I once used them to help Robert Cutler revise his timing of the photographs.
No, I meant W. Cakebread. Brown, too, apparently, though. Walt C held
that the shadows on the building indicated that one of the post-shooting
images--I think the Powell, or maybe one of the Dillards, or both--were
taken *before* the shooting....
Walt Cakebread is just one of the aliases of Walter Brown. You don't
know him. I do. Any variation on bread will do.

Rob Caprio:
Slander is all you have. Good to know.

I was not even on the internet discussing this issue in 1999. It is
signed "Walt" as in Walt Cakebread. That is probably your author.

What I find interesting is us all the foreign language embedded in the
copy you pasted Johnny. Are you from another country?

Rob Caprio:
It is once again clear that the WC defenders are sunk as the WC should
have inquired about this more and did not.

The FBI would have known about any weapons LHO had received, thus, the
big "search" on 11/23/63 was just a hoax.

Thus, they are reduced to trying to make claims that I am someone else.

They are sunk too.

Anthony Marsh:
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Slander is all you have. Good to know.

I was not even on the internet discussing this issue in 1999. It is
signed "Walt" as in Walt Cakebread. That is probably your author.

What I find interesting is us all the foreign language embedded in the
copy you pasted Johnny. Are you from another country?




Also known as Walt Brown.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2016-08-10 03:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
On 8/3/2016 9:44 PM, John Reagor Kin cut the wearer of the wristwatch being
Post by John Reagor King
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
What I'd like to see you do is take a course and get so smart that you
can tell the exact time from the shadows on the buildings.
Walt Cakebread could do that. Or said he could....
You mean Walt Brown. At least he tried.
I once used them to help Robert Cutler revise his timing of the photographs.
No, I meant W. Cakebread. Brown, too, apparently, though. Walt C held
that the shadows on the building indicated that one of the post-shooting
images--I think the Powell, or maybe one of the Dillards, or both--were
taken *before* the shooting....
Walt Cakebread is just one of the aliases of Walter Brown. You don't
know him. I do. Any variation on bread will do.
Wasn't Walt Brown an editor of a now-defunct magazine? I met Walt
Cakebread circa 1998, and he didn't offer that he was an editor. And I
seem to recall corresponding with Brown about the same time re a possible
piece on the DPD radio logs, and Walt C didn't mention *that*....

Signed, Perplexed,

dcw
donald willis
2016-08-06 20:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
And you know this HOW?? Baker did a quick check upstairs soon after the
shooting--so quick he didn't even see the three 5th-floor employees, as he
said to the HSCA, hiding behind the boxes! (They had to tell *him* that
they saw *him*.) Not quite a thorough search!

Insp Sawyer, Sgt. Hill & Patrolman Valentine went to the 5th floor, after
12:50, and found *something*, if no perps: Valentine was left to watch
the floor.

The timing of other searches is unclear, though the apparent main one, by
Fritz, didn't even start until he got there just before 1pm.
Post by John Reagor King
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building.
I think Prof. Marsh has already taken up this gauntlet, but do you really
think that it was impossible for *another* TSBD employee to have been a
perp?

Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
Post by John Reagor King
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building
As above, no thorough search was done apparently until Fritz got there.

, I do not
Post by John Reagor King
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period?
No, it hasn't occurred to me. Because the SS affidavit was NOT his first
statement. He talked to the FBI that Tuesday, 11/26, and did not mention
hearing shell sounds from above! Maybe now it occurs to *you* that the
reason he didn't mention falling shells for over a week was that he didn't
hear any such thing, eh?

I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
Post by John Reagor King
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
See above. Never say "ever" again....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-07 02:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
And you know this HOW?? Baker did a quick check upstairs soon after the
shooting--so quick he didn't even see the three 5th-floor employees, as he
said to the HSCA, hiding behind the boxes! (They had to tell *him* that
they saw *him*.) Not quite a thorough search!
Insp Sawyer, Sgt. Hill & Patrolman Valentine went to the 5th floor, after
12:50, and found *something*, if no perps: Valentine was left to watch
the floor.
The timing of other searches is unclear, though the apparent main one, by
Fritz, didn't even start until he got there just before 1pm.
Post by John Reagor King
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building.
I think Prof. Marsh has already taken up this gauntlet, but do you really
think that it was impossible for *another* TSBD employee to have been a
perp?
I don't, but I use it as kookbait to see who will bite.
Post by donald willis
Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
Post by John Reagor King
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building
As above, no thorough search was done apparently until Fritz got there.
, I do not
Post by John Reagor King
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period?
No, it hasn't occurred to me. Because the SS affidavit was NOT his first
statement. He talked to the FBI that Tuesday, 11/26, and did not mention
hearing shell sounds from above! Maybe now it occurs to *you* that the
reason he didn't mention falling shells for over a week was that he didn't
hear any such thing, eh?
I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
Post by John Reagor King
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
See above. Never say "ever" again....
dcw
John Reagor King
2016-08-08 15:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
And you know this HOW?? Baker did a quick check upstairs soon after the
shooting--so quick he didn't even see the three 5th-floor employees, as he
said to the HSCA, hiding behind the boxes! (They had to tell *him* that
they saw *him*.) Not quite a thorough search!
Insp Sawyer, Sgt. Hill & Patrolman Valentine went to the 5th floor, after
12:50, and found *something*, if no perps: Valentine was left to watch
the floor.
The timing of other searches is unclear, though the apparent main one, by
Fritz, didn't even start until he got there just before 1pm.
Yes, so look again at my exact words. I wasn't talking about the much
earlier time when Baker was searching the building. Instead I said,
plain as day, that by the time Luke Mooney said he saw the shells, no
one suspected of being a "perp" had been found in the building. And as
I've already said, the natural assumption at first would be that the
"perp" would be someone who was not employed in the building and thus
would be someone that none of the real employees had ever seen before.
Since no such person was found inside the building by the time Luke
Mooney said he found the shells.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building.
I think Prof. Marsh has already taken up this gauntlet, but do you really
think that it was impossible for *another* TSBD employee to have been a
perp?
I suppose it could be admitted that it is not "impossible" in an
absolute sense, but that idea would be extremely difficult to sustain.
One would first have to *specifically* name an employee of the building
other than Oswald and then cite evidence implicating that person. What
evidence would one cite to implicate a different employee of the
building, and which specific employee would that evidence implicate?
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building
As above, no thorough search was done apparently until Fritz got there.
No thorough search was done during the approximately thirty minutes
between when the final shot was fired and the approximate time that Luke
Mooney said he first saw the shells to see if someone who was not known
to be an employee of the building was still inside the building? I'm
not entirely sure I agree with you there, but let's say for the moment
that you're correct. What it still indicates is that the police
themselves, correctly or mistakenly, seemed to believe, by the time Luke
Mooney said he saw the shells, that there was no one in the building who
was not an employee who had already been working in the building prior
to that day, other than the officers themselves, of course. They may
not have literally looked into every single room, every single closet,
etc. by then, but my point was that the officers *themselves* seemed to
be satisfied by then that no such person was inside the building,
whether they were correct in that assumption or premature in that
assumption.

And in the event it turned out to be true, regardless of whether or not
they had yet done a thorough enough search to prove it irrefutably by
the time Luke Mooney first saw the shells: there indeed, as even the
majority of CTs agree, was no one inside the building who was not
already known to be an employee already working in the building who was
ever both seen and also conclusively identified from the moment Baker
first entered the building to a time long after Mooney found the shells.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period?
No, it hasn't occurred to me. Because the SS affidavit was NOT his first
statement. He talked to the FBI that Tuesday, 11/26, and did not mention
hearing shell sounds from above! Maybe now it occurs to *you* that the
reason he didn't mention falling shells for over a week was that he didn't
hear any such thing, eh?
Ah yes, thank you. If I had ever known about that report before, I had
since forgotten it. I am now looking directly at that document in the
midst of typing this sentence, and here is a link to it:

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_
hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif

Now, sure, I suppose it's *possible* that this idea of hearing the
shells hitting the floor above was a fabrication that didn't occur to
Mr. Norman until after November 26, but I'm now going to point out the
obvious problems with using this FBI document to support that idea.

Many years ago I became frustrated with the fact that these FBI reports
are typically summaries of what the witness said, but that in so many
cases the witness is not quoted verbatim in any portion of the document.
This document gives us no indication of the exact words Harold Norman
spoke out loud when being interviewed by Agent Keutzer. Also, look at
how very brief the document is: less than a full page. The document
itself gives us no indication whatsoever as far as how many *other*
things Norman might have said that are simply not mentioned here. Also
the document gives no indication whatsoever as to exactly how many
minutes this interview lasted. It gives the date, and nothing else.
There are various possibilities here, all of which could be considered
equally plausible. For example, Agent Keutzer could have, on that same
day, had other duties to attend to, and only had a few minutes available
to talk with Mr. Norman. There isn't any way to tell whether or not
Norman had completely finished saying everything he intended to say by
the time the interview was concluded.

Now, let's go back to exactly what I said originally. I raised the
question of what, exactly, is Harold Norman's earliest recorded
statement about the shooting, and when that statement dates from. While
I admit I did not use the specific definition that the statement had to
be in the man's own words, written or spoken out loud, if one *now* uses
that definition, then this FBI report does not qualify. This is
*another* person's *summary* of what Harold Norman said, not Norman
himself speaking or writing in his own words. Thus, using that
definition, his earliest recorded statement *in* *his* *own* *exact*
*words* still remains the December 4 statement, handwritten by the man
himself, then typed by another person, but still signed with his
handwritten signature. I do not see Harold Norman's handwritten
signature on this 11-26 FBI report, do you?

Sure, I could admit that it is *possible* that Norman invented the idea
that he heard the shells falling on the floor, when he did not actually
hear any such thing at the time. But this single FBI document hardly
comes anywhere close to *proving* that he was lying. Lack of mention of
this detail in that one document hardly proves that he invented this
story; the most it shows is that that detail simply wasn't mentioned by
Agent Keutzer, and since nowhere did Keutzer quote Mr. Norman verbatim
on any of the claims that *are* mentioned, there could be a variety of
reasons that could be considered to be equally plausible as to why
Keutzer did not mention this detail, such as:

1. Keutzer's time was limited, and perhaps given more time Norman might
have mentioned this particular detail.

2. Norman was on the point of mentioning that he also heard the shells
hitting on the floor when the agent concluded the interview, saying he
had something else to attend to.

3. Norman *did* mention this detail, but Keutzer inadvertently missed
it, perhaps because he wasn't paying attention at that particular
moment, or maybe because someone else entered the room and distracted
him at the same moment that Norman mentioned that he heard the shells
hitting the floor above him.

That is yet another problem with this document. No mention is made of
where this interview took place. No mention is made of whether or not
anyone else was in the room during all or part of the time besides
Keutzer and Norman. We have no possible way of knowing how closely
Keutzer was paying attention to every single sentence that Norman spoke
out loud.

And even so, look at one detail that still *is* mentioned here:

"He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly
above him."

Sure, the *additional* detail of *also* hearing the shells hitting the
floor is entirely absent. But even without that, Agent Keutzer was
still claiming that Norman told him that the shots seemed to come from
the floor directly above.

Once again this is consistent with several witnesses saying that they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of one of the easternmost windows
of one of the uppermost floors of the building. With three TSBD
employees indisputably present in some of the easternmost windows of the
fifth floor, none of whom were holding such an object at the time, the
long, narrow object cannot be on any floor below the sixth floor.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
See above. Never say "ever" again....
I shall decline to follow your advice. In his *earliest* *recorded*
*statement* *in* *his* *own* *words*, no matter whether it was spoken
aloud or written, no matter whether it is an audio recording of him
speaking or is a written transcription of him speaking, or whether or
not it is a statement written by him, he said, plain as day, that "I
could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor," with the specific
usage of the first person in the sentence itself. The FBI report is
merely a brief summary, written by a different person, of what Norman
supposedly said, and it contains fewer details than his affidavit, and
far fewer details than his WC testimony. None of these documents prove
that he did invent the story of hearing the shells hitting the floor
after the fact, and it is equally true that none of these documents
prove he didn't invent it after the fact. None of these documents prove
anything either way.

But there is so much more evidence beyond Harold Norman alone. Whether
or not Norman "invented" the story of hearing the shells hit the floor
(and I should also mention the additional detail of him also claiming to
have heard "the bolt action of the rifle," in which, there again, very
much unlike Agent Keutzer, I am quoting Mr. Norman's exact handwritten
words verbatim), we *also* have this:

Twelve days before Luke Mooney would have any possible way of knowing
that Harold Norman would write that he had heard shells hitting the
floor above him, Mr. Mooney found three rifle shells in practically the
*exact* *spot* that would have produced exactly those very same sounds
that Norman claimed, twelve days later, that he heard.

And long before Luke Mooney would have any possible way of knowing that
several witnesses would say this, these several witnesses said there was
a long, narrow object sticking out of a window that was at, or very
close to, the exact window below the sill of which Mooney said he first
spotted the shells. Sure, he might have already known that *some* of
these witnesses had said this by the time he spotted the shells, but I
know of no credible evidence that Luke Mooney yet knew what *all* of
these witnesses would say about where that long, narrow object was.

And on 11-22, and 11-26, and 12-4, Benjamin Keutzer, Luke Mooney and
Harold Norman would have had no possible way of knowing in advance how
many witnesses would *eventually* corroborate each other on certain
aspects of the sounds of the gunfire, since nowhere close to all of
those witnesses had yet made their earliest recorded statements *in*
*their* *own* *words* by December 4, 1963. In fact, no human on this
planet would have yet had any possible way of knowing such a thing
anywhere near that early, since everyone had to wait quite a few months
for all such statements, no matter how they were made, whether on
television or in written form, or in interviews in newspapers and
magazines or in the WC volumes of printed testimony to all be published
or otherwise made public. While the WC's report was published in
September, 1963, the additional volumes containing the testimonies of
552 witnesses, including the Dealey Plaza witnesses who by themselves
numbered in the triple-digits, were not published until November, almost
exactly one year after the assassination. And these volumes did not
only contain the 552 actual testimonies before the commission itself.
There were also many of the *written* statements, written by the
witnesses themselves, not just summarized by others. Only after the
publication of those additional volumes could the general public get any
clear idea of what the *majority* of the Dealey Plaza witnesses actually
said, in their own words, about the sounds of the gunfire.

And finally there it was, plain as day: witness after witness after
witness, well over one-hundred of them, in statements made not only to
the WC, and not only in written statements taken at other times, but
also speaking on television during the same twelve months, also being
interviewed by reporters for newspapers and magazines during the same
twelve months, saying exactly the same thing: that while they disagreed
with each other about which direction the shots sounded as if they came
from, the vast majority of them agreed that whatever direction it was,
all the sounds had seemed to come from a single direction.

Isn't it true that during those same twelve months, from November 22,
1963 to November 22, 1964, that fewer than ten witnesses *individually*
claimed to have heard shots from more than one direction? And I'm
talking about in their own words, not paraphrased by someone else
without being quoted verbatim.

So, the earwitnesses came very close to being unanimous: whatever
direction the sounds came from, they all came from a single direction,
regardless of how many or how few shots each witness recalled. Even the
majority of all the witnesses who said they recalled hearing more than
three shots still additionally each named only one direction for every
one of those of shots, whether or not the direction named was the same
direction as was named by other witnesses.

Then we have yet another aspect of this which I have not mentioned
before in this thread, but which have mentioned on many previous
occasions since 2002: what the majority of the witnesses said about the
volume of the gunshots and the apparent distance of the sounds:

While there were indeed some witnesses who said that at least one of the
shots sounded louder or softer than the other shots, or said that at
least one of the shots sounded as if it was closer or farther away than
the other shots, once again the vast majority of these witnesses said
nothing even remotely similar. When one reads all statements ever made
by any of these witnesses in their own words about this specific issue,
the vast majority of them either said nothing at all about any
difference in the sound of each shot, or else very specifically said
that all the shots sounded with approximately equal volume, and/or all
the shots sounded as if they came from about the same distance away,
whatever that distance seemed to be for that particular witness.

When all this evidence is taken together, and one looks specifically for
elements of greatest consistency instead of emphasizing the natural and
normal differences in what this many different people said about the
shooting, it becomes quite obvious that there is a tremendously larger
amount of evidence supporting the idea that all the shots were fired
from a single weapon than supports the idea of multiple weapons. Thus,
according to the *majority* of the evidence, where, exactly, was this
weapon at the time the shots were fired, and what is the most *likely*
candidate for this weapon?

A rifle is a long, narrow object. Several witnesses said they saw just
such a long, narrow object sticking out of one of the easternmost
windows of one of the uppermost floors of a single building. If this
wasn't the single rifle that fired all of the shots, what was it then?
And where else did several different witnesses independently corroborate
each other about any such object? Obviously not any of the windows in
either of the other two buildings that were on the corner of Elm and
Houston. And obviously not anywhere at or near the picket fence on what
later came to be called the "grassy knoll," nor in fact at any *other*
location on the knoll.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-09 01:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
And you know this HOW?? Baker did a quick check upstairs soon after the
shooting--so quick he didn't even see the three 5th-floor employees, as he
said to the HSCA, hiding behind the boxes! (They had to tell *him* that
they saw *him*.) Not quite a thorough search!
Insp Sawyer, Sgt. Hill & Patrolman Valentine went to the 5th floor, after
12:50, and found *something*, if no perps: Valentine was left to watch
the floor.
The timing of other searches is unclear, though the apparent main one, by
Fritz, didn't even start until he got there just before 1pm.
Yes, so look again at my exact words. I wasn't talking about the much
earlier time when Baker was searching the building. Instead I said,
plain as day, that by the time Luke Mooney said he saw the shells, no
one suspected of being a "perp" had been found in the building. And as
I've already said, the natural assumption at first would be that the
"perp" would be someone who was not employed in the building and thus
would be someone that none of the real employees had ever seen before.
Since no such person was found inside the building by the time Luke
Mooney said he found the shells.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building.
I think Prof. Marsh has already taken up this gauntlet, but do you really
think that it was impossible for *another* TSBD employee to have been a
perp?
I suppose it could be admitted that it is not "impossible" in an
absolute sense, but that idea would be extremely difficult to sustain.
One would first have to *specifically* name an employee of the building
other than Oswald and then cite evidence implicating that person. What
evidence would one cite to implicate a different employee of the
building, and which specific employee would that evidence implicate?
The police never considered a second shooter inside the TSBD.
But they thought Oswald had help from someone.
They named Buell Wesley Frazier. Fritz typed up a confession for him and
told him to sign it.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building
As above, no thorough search was done apparently until Fritz got there.
No thorough search was done during the approximately thirty minutes
between when the final shot was fired and the approximate time that Luke
Mooney said he first saw the shells to see if someone who was not known
Yes, it was. The found several bottles and bags of chicken bones.
The original theory was that someone had snuck in and hid inside the
building all night.
Post by John Reagor King
to be an employee of the building was still inside the building? I'm
not entirely sure I agree with you there, but let's say for the moment
that you're correct. What it still indicates is that the police
themselves, correctly or mistakenly, seemed to believe, by the time Luke
Mooney said he saw the shells, that there was no one in the building who
was not an employee who had already been working in the building prior
to that day, other than the officers themselves, of course. They may
No silly. They thought the assassin had snuck in at night and was hiding
in the building.

Loading Image...

This is the problem with recent reseearchers. They never bothered
reading the original newspaper stories. Our group compiled a whole
pamphlet full of original newspaper stories.
Post by John Reagor King
not have literally looked into every single room, every single closet,
etc. by then, but my point was that the officers *themselves* seemed to
be satisfied by then that no such person was inside the building,
Duh, after the shooting no one was still hiding in the closet.
Post by John Reagor King
whether they were correct in that assumption or premature in that
assumption.
And in the event it turned out to be true, regardless of whether or not
they had yet done a thorough enough search to prove it irrefutably by
the time Luke Mooney first saw the shells: there indeed, as even the
majority of CTs agree, was no one inside the building who was not
already known to be an employee already working in the building who was
ever both seen and also conclusively identified from the moment Baker
first entered the building to a time long after Mooney found the shells.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period?
No, it hasn't occurred to me. Because the SS affidavit was NOT his first
statement. He talked to the FBI that Tuesday, 11/26, and did not mention
hearing shell sounds from above! Maybe now it occurs to *you* that the
reason he didn't mention falling shells for over a week was that he didn't
hear any such thing, eh?
Ah yes, thank you. If I had ever known about that report before, I had
since forgotten it. I am now looking directly at that document in the
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_
hsca/wcd_hsca_0083a.gif
Now, sure, I suppose it's *possible* that this idea of hearing the
shells hitting the floor above was a fabrication that didn't occur to
Mr. Norman until after November 26, but I'm now going to point out the
obvious problems with using this FBI document to support that idea.
Many years ago I became frustrated with the fact that these FBI reports
are typically summaries of what the witness said, but that in so many
cases the witness is not quoted verbatim in any portion of the document.
This document gives us no indication of the exact words Harold Norman
spoke out loud when being interviewed by Agent Keutzer. Also, look at
how very brief the document is: less than a full page. The document
itself gives us no indication whatsoever as far as how many *other*
things Norman might have said that are simply not mentioned here. Also
the document gives no indication whatsoever as to exactly how many
minutes this interview lasted. It gives the date, and nothing else.
There are various possibilities here, all of which could be considered
equally plausible. For example, Agent Keutzer could have, on that same
day, had other duties to attend to, and only had a few minutes available
to talk with Mr. Norman. There isn't any way to tell whether or not
Norman had completely finished saying everything he intended to say by
the time the interview was concluded.
Now, let's go back to exactly what I said originally. I raised the
question of what, exactly, is Harold Norman's earliest recorded
statement about the shooting, and when that statement dates from. While
I admit I did not use the specific definition that the statement had to
be in the man's own words, written or spoken out loud, if one *now* uses
that definition, then this FBI report does not qualify. This is
*another* person's *summary* of what Harold Norman said, not Norman
himself speaking or writing in his own words. Thus, using that
definition, his earliest recorded statement *in* *his* *own* *exact*
*words* still remains the December 4 statement, handwritten by the man
himself, then typed by another person, but still signed with his
handwritten signature. I do not see Harold Norman's handwritten
signature on this 11-26 FBI report, do you?
Sure, I could admit that it is *possible* that Norman invented the idea
that he heard the shells falling on the floor, when he did not actually
hear any such thing at the time. But this single FBI document hardly
comes anywhere close to *proving* that he was lying. Lack of mention of
this detail in that one document hardly proves that he invented this
story; the most it shows is that that detail simply wasn't mentioned by
Agent Keutzer, and since nowhere did Keutzer quote Mr. Norman verbatim
on any of the claims that *are* mentioned, there could be a variety of
reasons that could be considered to be equally plausible as to why
1. Keutzer's time was limited, and perhaps given more time Norman might
have mentioned this particular detail.
2. Norman was on the point of mentioning that he also heard the shells
hitting on the floor when the agent concluded the interview, saying he
had something else to attend to.
3. Norman *did* mention this detail, but Keutzer inadvertently missed
it, perhaps because he wasn't paying attention at that particular
moment, or maybe because someone else entered the room and distracted
him at the same moment that Norman mentioned that he heard the shells
hitting the floor above him.
That is yet another problem with this document. No mention is made of
where this interview took place. No mention is made of whether or not
anyone else was in the room during all or part of the time besides
Keutzer and Norman. We have no possible way of knowing how closely
Keutzer was paying attention to every single sentence that Norman spoke
out loud.
"He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly
above him."
Sure, the *additional* detail of *also* hearing the shells hitting the
floor is entirely absent. But even without that, Agent Keutzer was
still claiming that Norman told him that the shots seemed to come from
the floor directly above.
Once again this is consistent with several witnesses saying that they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of one of the easternmost windows
of one of the uppermost floors of the building. With three TSBD
employees indisputably present in some of the easternmost windows of the
fifth floor, none of whom were holding such an object at the time, the
long, narrow object cannot be on any floor below the sixth floor.
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
See above. Never say "ever" again....
I shall decline to follow your advice. In his *earliest* *recorded*
*statement* *in* *his* *own* *words*, no matter whether it was spoken
aloud or written, no matter whether it is an audio recording of him
speaking or is a written transcription of him speaking, or whether or
not it is a statement written by him, he said, plain as day, that "I
could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor," with the specific
usage of the first person in the sentence itself. The FBI report is
merely a brief summary, written by a different person, of what Norman
supposedly said, and it contains fewer details than his affidavit, and
far fewer details than his WC testimony. None of these documents prove
that he did invent the story of hearing the shells hitting the floor
after the fact, and it is equally true that none of these documents
prove he didn't invent it after the fact. None of these documents prove
anything either way.
But there is so much more evidence beyond Harold Norman alone. Whether
or not Norman "invented" the story of hearing the shells hit the floor
(and I should also mention the additional detail of him also claiming to
have heard "the bolt action of the rifle," in which, there again, very
much unlike Agent Keutzer, I am quoting Mr. Norman's exact handwritten
Twelve days before Luke Mooney would have any possible way of knowing
that Harold Norman would write that he had heard shells hitting the
floor above him, Mr. Mooney found three rifle shells in practically the
*exact* *spot* that would have produced exactly those very same sounds
that Norman claimed, twelve days later, that he heard.
And long before Luke Mooney would have any possible way of knowing that
several witnesses would say this, these several witnesses said there was
a long, narrow object sticking out of a window that was at, or very
close to, the exact window below the sill of which Mooney said he first
spotted the shells. Sure, he might have already known that *some* of
these witnesses had said this by the time he spotted the shells, but I
know of no credible evidence that Luke Mooney yet knew what *all* of
these witnesses would say about where that long, narrow object was.
And on 11-22, and 11-26, and 12-4, Benjamin Keutzer, Luke Mooney and
Harold Norman would have had no possible way of knowing in advance how
many witnesses would *eventually* corroborate each other on certain
aspects of the sounds of the gunfire, since nowhere close to all of
those witnesses had yet made their earliest recorded statements *in*
*their* *own* *words* by December 4, 1963. In fact, no human on this
planet would have yet had any possible way of knowing such a thing
anywhere near that early, since everyone had to wait quite a few months
for all such statements, no matter how they were made, whether on
television or in written form, or in interviews in newspapers and
magazines or in the WC volumes of printed testimony to all be published
or otherwise made public. While the WC's report was published in
September, 1963, the additional volumes containing the testimonies of
552 witnesses, including the Dealey Plaza witnesses who by themselves
numbered in the triple-digits, were not published until November, almost
exactly one year after the assassination. And these volumes did not
only contain the 552 actual testimonies before the commission itself.
There were also many of the *written* statements, written by the
witnesses themselves, not just summarized by others. Only after the
publication of those additional volumes could the general public get any
clear idea of what the *majority* of the Dealey Plaza witnesses actually
said, in their own words, about the sounds of the gunfire.
And finally there it was, plain as day: witness after witness after
witness, well over one-hundred of them, in statements made not only to
the WC, and not only in written statements taken at other times, but
also speaking on television during the same twelve months, also being
interviewed by reporters for newspapers and magazines during the same
twelve months, saying exactly the same thing: that while they disagreed
with each other about which direction the shots sounded as if they came
from, the vast majority of them agreed that whatever direction it was,
all the sounds had seemed to come from a single direction.
Isn't it true that during those same twelve months, from November 22,
1963 to November 22, 1964, that fewer than ten witnesses *individually*
claimed to have heard shots from more than one direction? And I'm
talking about in their own words, not paraphrased by someone else
without being quoted verbatim.
So, the earwitnesses came very close to being unanimous: whatever
direction the sounds came from, they all came from a single direction,
regardless of how many or how few shots each witness recalled. Even the
majority of all the witnesses who said they recalled hearing more than
three shots still additionally each named only one direction for every
one of those of shots, whether or not the direction named was the same
direction as was named by other witnesses.
Then we have yet another aspect of this which I have not mentioned
before in this thread, but which have mentioned on many previous
occasions since 2002: what the majority of the witnesses said about the
While there were indeed some witnesses who said that at least one of the
shots sounded louder or softer than the other shots, or said that at
least one of the shots sounded as if it was closer or farther away than
the other shots, once again the vast majority of these witnesses said
nothing even remotely similar. When one reads all statements ever made
by any of these witnesses in their own words about this specific issue,
the vast majority of them either said nothing at all about any
difference in the sound of each shot, or else very specifically said
that all the shots sounded with approximately equal volume, and/or all
the shots sounded as if they came from about the same distance away,
whatever that distance seemed to be for that particular witness.
When all this evidence is taken together, and one looks specifically for
elements of greatest consistency instead of emphasizing the natural and
normal differences in what this many different people said about the
shooting, it becomes quite obvious that there is a tremendously larger
amount of evidence supporting the idea that all the shots were fired
from a single weapon than supports the idea of multiple weapons. Thus,
according to the *majority* of the evidence, where, exactly, was this
weapon at the time the shots were fired, and what is the most *likely*
candidate for this weapon?
A rifle is a long, narrow object. Several witnesses said they saw just
such a long, narrow object sticking out of one of the easternmost
windows of one of the uppermost floors of a single building. If this
wasn't the single rifle that fired all of the shots, what was it then?
Euins said it was a pipe. I think he meant a pipe like a water pipe not
like the pipe you smoke.
Post by John Reagor King
And where else did several different witnesses independently corroborate
each other about any such object? Obviously not any of the windows in
Well, many people agreed that there was a big Hertz sign on the stop of
the building.

Some people remembered the Freeway sign. Only a couple of people knew
what a pergola is.
Post by John Reagor King
either of the other two buildings that were on the corner of Elm and
Houston. And obviously not anywhere at or near the picket fence on what
later came to be called the "grassy knoll," nor in fact at any *other*
location on the knoll.
Yes, later. A half hour later.
donald willis
2016-08-07 00:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Yes, and they had already ascertained that no "perps" were still in the
building quite a few minutes before Mooney saw the shells on the floor.
Reading his own descriptions of everything he did inside the building
before he saw the shells, in both his 11-23 report and his later testimony
to the WC, he obviously was searching various places in the building for
quite a few minutes before he saw the shells. To the WC he admitted that
he had failed to look at his watch to see the exact time when he found the
shells and then called out of the window to Decker and Fritz, but he
estimated that it would have been very near to 1:00 p.m., which would be
thirty minutes after the shots were fired. By then there were obviously
no suspected "perps" found in the building: Oswald had already left the
building, and no one was found in the building who was a complete stranger
to all of the TSBD employees, so it cannot be truthfully said that another
person who even maybe could have been the shooter, if it wasn't Oswald,
was found in the building. Since Mooney said he found the shells quite a
few minutes after no "perps" were discovered in the building, I do not
find it "curious" at all that Mooney called down to Decker and Fritz
*after* it was clear that there were no "perps at large up there," and I
am at a loss as to understand why you find it "curious" in the slightest.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
Good ole Barb, I wish she was still posting here. I finally got a
chance to talk to her on the phone in 2012 (I think). Great lady.
I've just looked through the entire collection in the City of Dallas
archives and there is no match for any document with Harold Norman's
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/data.htm
Do you see Harold Norman's name in that list of documents in any
context? I do not.
I immediately found the affidavits by Jarman and Williams, of course.
But unless you have some information that I don't have yet, it appears to
me that although Jarman and Williams were asked to submit affidavits,
Norman wasn't.
If this is true, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why Norman
is not known to have mentioned hearing the shells hitting the floor until
more than a week after the assassination is because the statement he made
more than a week later is his *earliest* *recorded* *statement* about the
shooting, period? I think the document you are referring to is Norman's
12-4-63 affidavit made, not to the Dallas Police or the Sheriff's
Department, but instead to the Secret Service. That document contains
"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds
later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly
above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I
also could hear the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from
the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me."
Donald, could the reason that he didn't mention this for the first time
ever until December 4, at least as far as any statement of his that has
been preserved for posterity, be quite simply that this is his *earliest*
*recorded* *statement* of any type about the shooting? Or can you produce
a statement of his regarding the shooting that can be conclusively dated
to a date prior to December 4?
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
it:

"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)

And this time tracks. Trask, in Pictures of the Pain, notes that Crime
Lab Lt. Day arrived in front of the depository at about 1:12" (p524).

Your guesses are pretty far off....

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-08-08 15:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.

Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells. I was addressing your comment that there is no photo
showing Luke Mooney in the window calling down to Decker and Fritz, and
pointing out that that is quite obviously not at all significant, since
it would depend on a photo taken at exactly the right moment to show him
in the window, and since there is not a shred of credible evidence that
Mooney remained in that window anywhere near as long as sixty seconds
continuously, it is not at all outlandish to suppose that just by pure
chance no photographer happened to snap a photo of the building at
exactly the right moment for him to be visible.
Post by donald willis
And this time tracks. Trask, in Pictures of the Pain, notes that Crime
Lab Lt. Day arrived in front of the depository at about 1:12" (p524).
Your guesses are pretty far off....
My guesses about *what* are pretty far off? Before I had any possible
way of knowing that you would cite the time the crime lab was called to
the scene, a time you now give specifically as 12:59 p.m., I had already
cited Luke Mooney as estimating that it was very close to that same time
that he stuck his head out the window, saw Decker and Fritz down on the
ground in front of the building, and "hollered" to get their attention.
Thus my "guess," as you so quaintly put it, was not what is called a
"guess" by most English-speakers worldwide, since I wasn't "guessing"
what Mooney told the WC, I was instead looking at his exact words in the
midst of typing my article. Luke Mooney, not me, made a "guess" as to
what time it was at the moment he called down to them. Thus you seem to
incorrectly attributing someone else's "guess" to me.

Or are you talking about all those different times I named, from 12:31
to 1:05? Those weren't "guesses" about what time Luke Mooney called
down from the window. I made it blindingly obvious instead that I was
addressing *only* your comment that no photo of the Depository actually
shows him doing so by demonstrating that unless it can be proven that an
absolute minimum of two photos per minute, every single minute, from
12:31 to 1:05, were taken of that part of the building, if there is even
*one* of those individual minutes when fewer than two photos were taken
within the same minute, all the photographers were just as likely as not
to have accidentally missed the moment that Luke Mooney appeared in the
window and called down to the two men below. I was addressing you
acting as if it is "significant" that no such photo shows him doing what
he claimed to have done, when it is perfectly plausible, and perfectly
reasonable, and perfectly logical to suggest that, although many photos
were taken of the building over a period of many minutes, by pure chance
no photo was snapped at the exact moment he was visible in the window.

That there happens, by pure chance, to be no photographic corroboration
of Luke Mooney's claim, comes nowhere within a million light-years of
"proving" that he did not find exactly what he said he found, and did
not do exactly what he said he did.
donald willis
2016-08-09 21:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-10 18:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
dcw
Don't be a Grammar Nazi. You know what he meant even it he didn't.
John Reagor King
2016-08-14 00:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
Here's my complete original sentence again:

**********

And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims that, just because
there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that automatically "proves" he
was lying when he said he called down to Fritz that he had already found
the shells, in the exact location where they were subsequently
photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor for the first
time.

**********

It's a somewhat long sentence, sure, but what's so unclear about it? In
an earlier article you acted as if it was strange that no photo taken of
the building happens to show Mooney in the window calling down to those
below, and I simply pointed out that just because there is no such photo
that doesn't automatically preclude Mooney finding the shells exactly when
and where he said he did.

Which part of this is difficult to understand, Donald?
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-15 14:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
**********
And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims that, just because
there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that automatically "proves" he
was lying when he said he called down to Fritz that he had already found
the shells, in the exact location where they were subsequently
photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor for the first
time.
**********
It's a somewhat long sentence, sure, but what's so unclear about it? In
an earlier article you acted as if it was strange that no photo taken of
the building happens to show Mooney in the window calling down to those
below, and I simply pointed out that just because there is no such photo
that doesn't automatically preclude Mooney finding the shells exactly when
and where he said he did.
Which part of this is difficult to understand, Donald?
I think you didn't have enough litotes in it.
donald willis
2016-08-16 03:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and
yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least to the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof that at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo, how do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the correct time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo is if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04, or 1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different one, it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather doubt it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he appeared in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime Lab was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
**********
And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims that, just because
there is no photo of Mooney in the window
Which of course cannot be proven....

, that automatically "proves" he
Post by John Reagor King
was lying when he said he called down to Fritz that he had already found
the shells
Agreed. Circa 12:58....

, in the exact location where they were subsequently
Post by John Reagor King
photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor for the first
time.
It's a somewhat long sentence, sure, but what's so unclear about it? In
an earlier article you acted as if it was strange that no photo taken of
the building happens to show Mooney in the window calling down to those
below, and I simply pointed out that just because there is no such photo
that doesn't automatically preclude Mooney finding the shells exactly when
and where he said he did.
Which part of this is difficult to understand, Donald?
Again, you *seem* to say that the shells were photographed before Fritz
came up.... I guess it depends on what you mean by "subsequently"--before
or after Fritz came up?

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-08-17 03:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they
were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening,
and
yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning
out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there
irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window
down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you
can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to
produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least
to
the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof
that
at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo,
how
do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the
correct
time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as
much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo
is
if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of
these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or
12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04,
or
1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact
minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at
12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different
one,
it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather
doubt
it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he
might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he
appeared
in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke
Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who
claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to
Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth
floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime
Lab
was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
**********
And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims that, just because
there is no photo of Mooney in the window
Which of course cannot be proven....
What cannot be proven? That there is no photo of Mooney in the window?
Post by donald willis
, in the exact location where they were subsequently
Post by John Reagor King
photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor for the first
time.
It's a somewhat long sentence, sure, but what's so unclear about it? In
an earlier article you acted as if it was strange that no photo taken of
the building happens to show Mooney in the window calling down to those
below, and I simply pointed out that just because there is no such photo
that doesn't automatically preclude Mooney finding the shells exactly when
and where he said he did.
Which part of this is difficult to understand, Donald?
Again, you *seem* to say that the shells were photographed before Fritz
came up.... I guess it depends on what you mean by "subsequently"--before
or after Fritz came up?
I see your point. Let me try again:

Mooney said he found the shells before Fritz came up to the sixth floor.
The spot where he said he found them is the same spot where they were
subsequently photographed, regardless of whether they were photographed
before or after Fritz came up to the sixth floor.

Is that better? ;-)
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-18 17:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and
yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
I don't find that even slightly suspicious either. Is there irrefutable
proof that at least one photo per minute was taken of that side of the
building every single minute between 12:30 and, say, 1:00 p.m., the
approximate time the man himself gave for calling out of the window down
to Decker and Fritz? You'd have to produce irrefutable proof that at
least one photo was taken every single minute, at least. Thus you can't
just produce a photo taken "around" that time, you'd also have to produce
irrefutable proof of the exact time each photo was taken, at least
to
the
nearest minute. Thus you would have to produce irrefutable proof
that
at
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:43
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:47
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:58
12:59
1:00
etc.
Do you not see the obvious problem here? Even when one of these
photographers gave an exact time for shooting a particular photo,
how
do
we know the time is correct? If, for example, they got the time from
their wristwatch, how do we know that the wristwatch had the
correct
time,
since it is commonly known that windup wristwatches (I don't recall
electronic wristwatches being common in 1963) can quite often be as much
as five minutes slow or fast without the wearer of the wristwatch being
aware of it. The only proof of time there could be in such a photo
is
if
the photo itself shows the clock on top of the TSBD, but in many of these
photos the clock is not visible.
Now, as I've said above, Mooney himself did not know what exact time it
was when he called down to Decker and Fritz, but let's just use the
hypothetical argument that it was at exactly 1:00, although this works
equally well any such statement of time, such as saying 12:55, or 12:56,
or 12:57, or 12:58, or 12:59, or 1:01, or 1:02, or 1:03, or 1:04,
or
1:05.
So, without any possible way of determining for certain the exact minute
that every single photo was taken, let's say a photo was snapped at 12:59
and then the next photo (by the same photographer or a different
one,
it
doesn't matter which) was snapped at 1:01. It is hardly outlandish to
suppose that just by pure chance no photo was taken at exactly the time
Mooney called out the window.
Also, here's yet another perfectly plausible scenario: I rather
doubt
it
took him a full sixty seconds to get their attention down below; he might
have been visible in the window for no longer than thirty seconds, for
example. What if a photo was taken only ten seconds before he
appeared
in
the window and another photo was taken only ten seconds after he
disappeared from the window? The two photos would be taken only fifty
seconds apart, less than a minute apart, yet naturally, neither photo
would show him in the window because the first photo was taken a few
seconds too early and the second photo was taken just a few seconds too
late.
I do not find it to be even *slightly* implausible that, just by pure
chance, no photo was taken at exactly the right time to show Luke Mooney
in that window. And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims
that, just because there is no photo of Mooney in the window, that
automatically "proves" he was lying when he said he called down to Fritz
that he had already found the shells, in the exact location where they
were subsequently photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor
for the first time.
They could not have been photographed by DPD, "before". The Crime
Lab
was
not called to the scene until about 12:59, when Sgt. Harkness called for
"Give us 508 [Crime Lab station wagon] down to the TSBD" CE 1974 p41)
And that time, 12:59, superbly corroborates Luke Mooney who, although he
plainly admitted that he did not know the precise time when he called
down out of the window to Decker and Fritz, did say that he thought it
was very close to 1:00 p.m., and 12:59 p.m. is indeed very close to 1:00
p.m.
Also, I was very obviously not addressing what time photos were taken of
the shells.
It's not exactly "obvious", but now that I see where your circumlocution
winds up--pretty far from where it started, in that sentence--I see a
comma breaking up the misleading "the shells... were subsequently
photographed before Fritz came up". Which comma makes all the difference
in the world, if you can follow the convolutions. You're right, but your
verbosity clogs up the works!
**********
And naturally I will never agree with anyone who claims that, just because
there is no photo of Mooney in the window
Which of course cannot be proven....
What cannot be proven? That there is no photo of Mooney in the window?
Post by donald willis
, in the exact location where they were subsequently
Post by John Reagor King
photographed, *before* Fritz came up to the sixth floor for the first
time.
It's a somewhat long sentence, sure, but what's so unclear about it? In
an earlier article you acted as if it was strange that no photo taken of
the building happens to show Mooney in the window calling down to those
below, and I simply pointed out that just because there is no such photo
that doesn't automatically preclude Mooney finding the shells exactly when
and where he said he did.
Which part of this is difficult to understand, Donald?
Again, you *seem* to say that the shells were photographed before Fritz
came up.... I guess it depends on what you mean by "subsequently"--before
or after Fritz came up?
Mooney said he found the shells before Fritz came up to the sixth floor.
The spot where he said he found them is the same spot where they were
subsequently photographed, regardless of whether they were photographed
before or after Fritz came up to the sixth floor.
Is that better? ;-)
Not exactly.

Anthony Marsh
2016-08-04 02:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
Yes, yes, yes, I went through many of the "the shells were planted" claims
years ago; all that is by now old, old news to me. But I don't recall
anything even remotely approaching irrefutable proof that they were
planted there. And nowhere near all of these witnesses claimed that Fritz
pocketed the shells *before* they were photographed
I believe only Alyea claimed that they were "pocketed". Meanwhile, Fritz
all but denied that he picked the hulls up in the depository.
, and we've got Luke
Post by John Reagor King
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
Curious. Fritz, or maybe Alyea, said that the crime lab was not allowed
upstairs until cops & deputies ascertained that the perps were not still
at large up there.
Post by John Reagor King
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
Post by John Reagor King
he was at that moment almost directly below the location
And yet he didn't mention this in any affidavit or interview for over a
week. (Thank you, Barb J.)
where Luke Mooney
Post by John Reagor King
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed.
All the photos of the TSBD, even when nothing much was happening, and yet
not one photographer, apparently, got a shot of Mooney leaning out a
window, *any* window!
Maybe not from inside the TSBD. Maybe from outside.
Post by donald willis
dcw (to be continued, probably)
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-03 02:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
Yes, yes, yes, I went through many of the "the shells were planted" claims
years ago; all that is by now old, old news to me. But I don't recall
anything even remotely approaching irrefutable proof that they were
planted there. And nowhere near all of these witnesses claimed that Fritz
Tom Alyea. He was there. You weren't.
Post by John Reagor King
pocketed the shells *before* they were photographed, and we've got Luke
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
he was at that moment almost directly below the location where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed. And whether those shells were "planted" or not, is there
any other photograph proven to have been taken that day and no other day
which depicts even one rifle shell anywhere else in Dealey Plaza, inside
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.
below and to his left.
Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.
James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.
Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."
Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.
Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.
Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.
Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.
Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.
I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)
Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.
Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.
Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.
Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.
Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.
Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?
So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?
Oh come now.
Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.
But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.
But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
Well, guess what? In 1978 the HSCA did shooting tests in Dealey Plaza
that PROVE that three shots were fired from that window.
donald willis
2016-08-03 19:08:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 6:39:23 AM UTC-7, John King wro cut
Post by John Reagor King
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
he was at that moment almost directly below the location where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed. And whether those shells were "planted" or not, is there
any other photograph proven to have been taken that day and no other day
which depicts even one rifle shell anywhere else in Dealey Plaza
To continue...

Well, if, as you provisionally grant, they *were* "planted", then of
course no rifle shells would have been found "anywhere else", at least not
in the same building!

, inside
Post by John Reagor King
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.
That last phrase--"anywhere... upper floor"--puts us on the same page!
Post by John Reagor King
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.
below and to his left.
Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.
James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.
Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."
Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.
Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.
Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.
Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.
Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.
I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)
Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.
Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.
Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.
Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.
Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.
Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?
So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?
Oh come now.
Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.
But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.
But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
You left out Bob Edwards, who thought he had heard *four* shots! (He
testified something like, I heard one more shot than was fired.) But,
yes, I don't think he said the fourth came from a different direction than
the other three....

But most of your impressive summing up was obviously directed at someone
other than myself, maybe Prof. Marsh, for example. Me, I subscribe to
Patrolman Hill's 12:37 description of the source of the shooting (as per
his witness)--upper right hand corner of the TSBD (as you're facing it on
Elm). And I assume that you would too, except that he goes a little
further and says, "second window from the end".

That may have been a mistake, but it's a significant one, I think, as the
identities of both the witness and the cop in question were covered up at
the hearings. Check the hearings volumes, and you'll see one cop claim
credit for the transmission; check the Warren Report, and you'll see that
a different cop was credited there!

dcw
John Reagor King
2016-08-08 15:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 6:39:23 AM UTC-7, John King wro cut
Post by John Reagor King
, inside
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.
That last phrase--"anywhere... upper floor"--puts us on the same page!
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean there, I'm not quite sure
we're on the same page just yet. With this murder case we have a
tremendously larger number of witnesses than with the vast majority of
murder cases in all of United States history. I've already demonstrated
that they converged on the idea that all shots came from a single
location, and they merely disagreed with each other on which location
that was, as far as the sounds of the gunfire. Then several people all
saying they saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window on one of
the upper floors (meaning floors that were closer to the top of the
building than the bottom, which would be any floor above the fourth
floor) and these witnesses additionally converging on it being one of
the easternmost windows on the south side of the building. And much
less than a minute after the final shot was fired, the long, narrow
object was no longer there, so that proves that a real human pulled it
back in the window, otherwise it would have still been there.
Approximately thirty minutes after the shooting, Luke Mooney found three
shells below the sill of a window that was very near the easternmost end
of one of the three upper floors of the building. If the shells were
"planted," then what was the purpose of the long, narrow object sticking
out of the window at the same time the shots were being fired, which was
then withdrawn within seconds after the final shot?
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.
below and to his left.
Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.
James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.
Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."
Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.
Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.
Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.
Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.
Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.
I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)
Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.
Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.
Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.
Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.
Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.
Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?
So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?
Oh come now.
Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.
But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.
But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
You left out Bob Edwards, who thought he had heard *four* shots!
I "left out," as you put it, close to two-hundred witnesses, not just
him, quite obviously because to discuss every single witness who ever
made any statement at all about the sounds of the gunfire would have
made my article tremendously longer, and far *too* long. I discussed
*enough* witnesses, however, to articulate the obvious pattern that the
vast majority of witnesses thought all the shots came from a single
direction; they merely disagreed with each other about which single
direction that was.
Post by donald willis
(He
testified something like, I heard one more shot than was fired.)
In his same-day affidavit he was even clearer: "The motorcade rounded
the corner about this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but
it never occurred to us what it was."
Post by donald willis
But,
yes, I don't think he said the fourth came from a different direction than
the other three....
He certainly didn't. The very next sentence after the one I quoted,
which is also the final sentence in the affidavit, is this:

"The shots seemed to come from that building there."

Period.

One single location named for the sounds of all of the shots. Every
single shot.

And if we're to get into the witnesses who recalled a different number
of shots than three, let's make it plain that a larger number of people
recalled fewer than three shots, than the number of people who recalled
more than three shots. But even among the witnesses who named more or
fewer than three shots, the vast majority of them still individually
named only a single direction for all shots. Different directions from
some other witnesses, yes. But each *individual* witness in these cases
named a single direction for all of the sounds of gunfire, no matter how
many or how few shots they recalled.
Post by donald willis
But most of your impressive summing up was obviously directed at someone
other than myself, maybe Prof. Marsh, for example.
That is incorrect. I was using what the witnesses said as further
support of a single rifle being fired for all shots, no matter how many
or how few there were, and since the vast majority of witnesses said
three, it seems far more likely than not that that was how many shots
were fired. Since the earwitnesses converge, not on *which* location it
was, but on the idea that whatever location it was, it was a single
location, this then puts us in the circumstance of simply identifying
which single location that single rifle was firing from. The
earwitnesses only help us to identify the number of
locations...one...that the shots were fired from, but not which location
it was.

So now we go to the *eye*witnesses who said they saw a long, narrow
object sticking out of a window that was on one of the three floors that
was above the fourth floor (and I'm not sure any of them said the
uppermost floor, the seventh floor, but I could be mistaken about that)
but if they named a specific floor, it was no lower than the fifth
floor. All of them also said it was in one of the two or three
easternmost windows on whatever floor it was.

In your previous articles you seemed to be emphasizing only the elements
of what they said in which they were inconsistent with each other and
with the photographic evidence, such as exactly which window it was, how
far open the window was, etc. But you seemed to me to be virtually
ignoring the *other* things they said which were quite consistent with
each other.

I take precisely the opposite approach, as I have been demonstrating
about several different aspects of the assassination in thousands of
articles I have posted here since 2002. I look specifically, and very
meticulously for the elements of greatest consistency in witness
statements. This is why I say, with a gigantic amount of solid evidence
to support it, that the vast majority of witnesses were quite clear on
the matter of how *many* directions the sounds of gunfire seemed to come
from. They very strongly converge on it being a single rifle in a
single location. That's the element of greatest consistency in all of
their statements taken together. Where they diverge is of course where,
exactly, that single rifle was located as it was firing the shots.

I use the same principle, with no difference whatsoever, in analyzing
what the eyewitnesses said. What are the elements of greatest
consistency in what they said?

1. Every single witness who claimed to have seen a long, narrow object
sticking out of *any* window in that building said it was on an upper,
not lower floor.

2. Every one of them said it was in one of the easternmost windows of
whichever floor it was.

3. Luke Mooney found three rifle shells (the same number of shells as
the number of shots recalled by the vast majority of witnesses, so there
is an example of the earwitnesses converging with an eyewitness)
directly below the sill of one of the easternmost windows on one of the
three uppermost floors of the building.

So, if the shells were "planted," then the long, narrow object was
"planted" also, it would seem. There had to be a human behind that
window, whichever window it was, to draw the object back inside the
window. You can argue about whether or not that human was in the
"correct" window, i.e., the same window where the shells were "found"
below the sill of that window, but it still indicates that there was a
human up there holding a long, narrow object at the same time the shots
were fired, who then started drawing it back inside the window within
maybe, at the most, no more than ten seconds after the final shot was
fired.

When all of this evidence is taken together (plus more evidence that I
have not yet mentioned in this thread, though I've discussed that
evidence at great length in hundreds of articles here over the past 13+
years) it seems to me that, far more likely than not, the long, narrow
object was the single rifle that fired all the shots, and that the
shells were ejected by that same rifle. There is a far smaller amount
of total evidence that disputes this idea than the far larger amount of
evidence that supports it.
Post by donald willis
Me, I subscribe to
Patrolman Hill's 12:37 description of the source of the shooting (as per
his witness)--upper right hand corner of the TSBD (as you're facing it on
Elm).
Who would be yet another witness independently corroborating the same
part of the same building.
Post by donald willis
And I assume that you would too, except that he goes a little
further and says, "second window from the end".
Which would be differing from some of the other witnesses only in a
single trivial detail: was it the very easternmost window, or was it the
second window from the end, but it is still converging on one of the two
or three easternmost windows:

Exactly where these witnesses all said they saw the long, narrow object.
Exactly where Luke Mooney found three shells.

In all cases it's one of the two or three easternmost windows on an
upper floor of the building.

And a real human was very *obviously* behind one of those very windows
holding a long, narrow object. If that object wasn't the single rifle
that fired all the shots, what was it then? And if it wasn't the rifle,
where was that rifle then? In a window where no one noticed it? In a
window below which no shells were found?
Post by donald willis
That may have been a mistake, but it's a significant one, I think, as the
identities of both the witness and the cop in question were covered up at
the hearings.
Being only one or two windows off from other witnesses is a
"significant" mistake? I don't agree.
Post by donald willis
Check the hearings volumes, and you'll see one cop claim
credit for the transmission; check the Warren Report, and you'll see that
a different cop was credited there!
Ok. So? I still do not see this as being what most people who speak
English worldwide would call "significant." Which officer took credit
for which broadcast comes nowhere near erasing the witnesses who were
*identified* who all said the long, narrow object was sticking out of
one of the two or three easternmost windows on one of the two or three
uppermost floors of a single building, with the additional detail that
the object was no longer there much less than a minute after the final
shot was fired.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-09 02:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 6:39:23 AM UTC-7, John King wro cut
Post by John Reagor King
, inside
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.
That last phrase--"anywhere... upper floor"--puts us on the same page!
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean there, I'm not quite sure
we're on the same page just yet. With this murder case we have a
tremendously larger number of witnesses than with the vast majority of
murder cases in all of United States history. I've already demonstrated
that they converged on the idea that all shots came from a single
location, and they merely disagreed with each other on which location
that was, as far as the sounds of the gunfire. Then several people all
saying they saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window on one of
the upper floors (meaning floors that were closer to the top of the
building than the bottom, which would be any floor above the fourth
floor) and these witnesses additionally converging on it being one of
the easternmost windows on the south side of the building. And much
less than a minute after the final shot was fired, the long, narrow
object was no longer there, so that proves that a real human pulled it
back in the window, otherwise it would have still been there.
Approximately thirty minutes after the shooting, Luke Mooney found three
shells below the sill of a window that was very near the easternmost end
of one of the three upper floors of the building. If the shells were
"planted," then what was the purpose of the long, narrow object sticking
out of the window at the same time the shots were being fired, which was
then withdrawn within seconds after the final shot?
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.
below and to his left.
Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.
James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.
Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."
Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.
Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.
Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.
Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.
Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.
I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)
Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.
Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.
Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.
Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.
Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.
Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?
So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?
Oh come now.
Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.
But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.
But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
You left out Bob Edwards, who thought he had heard *four* shots!
I "left out," as you put it, close to two-hundred witnesses, not just
him, quite obviously because to discuss every single witness who ever
made any statement at all about the sounds of the gunfire would have
made my article tremendously longer, and far *too* long. I discussed
*enough* witnesses, however, to articulate the obvious pattern that the
vast majority of witnesses thought all the shots came from a single
direction; they merely disagreed with each other about which single
direction that was.
Post by donald willis
(He
testified something like, I heard one more shot than was fired.)
In his same-day affidavit he was even clearer: "The motorcade rounded
the corner about this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but
it never occurred to us what it was."
Post by donald willis
But,
yes, I don't think he said the fourth came from a different direction than
the other three....
He certainly didn't. The very next sentence after the one I quoted,
"The shots seemed to come from that building there."
Period.
One single location named for the sounds of all of the shots. Every
single shot.
And if we're to get into the witnesses who recalled a different number
of shots than three, let's make it plain that a larger number of people
recalled fewer than three shots, than the number of people who recalled
more than three shots. But even among the witnesses who named more or
fewer than three shots, the vast majority of them still individually
named only a single direction for all shots. Different directions from
some other witnesses, yes. But each *individual* witness in these cases
named a single direction for all of the sounds of gunfire, no matter how
many or how few shots they recalled.
Post by donald willis
But most of your impressive summing up was obviously directed at someone
other than myself, maybe Prof. Marsh, for example.
That is incorrect. I was using what the witnesses said as further
support of a single rifle being fired for all shots, no matter how many
or how few there were, and since the vast majority of witnesses said
three, it seems far more likely than not that that was how many shots
were fired. Since the earwitnesses converge, not on *which* location it
was, but on the idea that whatever location it was, it was a single
location, this then puts us in the circumstance of simply identifying
which single location that single rifle was firing from. The
earwitnesses only help us to identify the number of
locations...one...that the shots were fired from, but not which location
it was.
Well, guess what? The acoustical evidence shows 3 shots fired from the
sniper's nest. Now are you happy? We don't need to rely on kook witnesses.
Post by John Reagor King
So now we go to the *eye*witnesses who said they saw a long, narrow
object sticking out of a window that was on one of the three floors that
was above the fourth floor (and I'm not sure any of them said the
uppermost floor, the seventh floor, but I could be mistaken about that)
but if they named a specific floor, it was no lower than the fifth
floor. All of them also said it was in one of the two or three
easternmost windows on whatever floor it was.
In your previous articles you seemed to be emphasizing only the elements
of what they said in which they were inconsistent with each other and
with the photographic evidence, such as exactly which window it was, how
far open the window was, etc. But you seemed to me to be virtually
ignoring the *other* things they said which were quite consistent with
each other.
I take precisely the opposite approach, as I have been demonstrating
about several different aspects of the assassination in thousands of
articles I have posted here since 2002. I look specifically, and very
meticulously for the elements of greatest consistency in witness
statements. This is why I say, with a gigantic amount of solid evidence
to support it, that the vast majority of witnesses were quite clear on
the matter of how *many* directions the sounds of gunfire seemed to come
from. They very strongly converge on it being a single rifle in a
single location. That's the element of greatest consistency in all of
their statements taken together. Where they diverge is of course where,
exactly, that single rifle was located as it was firing the shots.
I use the same principle, with no difference whatsoever, in analyzing
what the eyewitnesses said. What are the elements of greatest
consistency in what they said?
1. Every single witness who claimed to have seen a long, narrow object
sticking out of *any* window in that building said it was on an upper,
not lower floor.
2. Every one of them said it was in one of the easternmost windows of
whichever floor it was.
3. Luke Mooney found three rifle shells (the same number of shells as
the number of shots recalled by the vast majority of witnesses, so there
is an example of the earwitnesses converging with an eyewitness)
directly below the sill of one of the easternmost windows on one of the
three uppermost floors of the building.
The same number of bullets that the acoustical evidence proves were
fired from the sniper's nest. Coincidence?
Post by John Reagor King
So, if the shells were "planted," then the long, narrow object was
"planted" also, it would seem. There had to be a human behind that
Nope. Witnesses can be confused. Photographs are not.
Post by John Reagor King
window, whichever window it was, to draw the object back inside the
window. You can argue about whether or not that human was in the
"correct" window, i.e., the same window where the shells were "found"
below the sill of that window, but it still indicates that there was a
human up there holding a long, narrow object at the same time the shots
were fired, who then started drawing it back inside the window within
maybe, at the most, no more than ten seconds after the final shot was
fired.
Well, I got a tip for you. It is extremely hard to shoot through a
closed window without breaking the glass. Ask Oswald. That's why his
shot missed Walker.
Post by John Reagor King
When all of this evidence is taken together (plus more evidence that I
have not yet mentioned in this thread, though I've discussed that
evidence at great length in hundreds of articles here over the past 13+
years) it seems to me that, far more likely than not, the long, narrow
object was the single rifle that fired all the shots, and that the
shells were ejected by that same rifle. There is a far smaller amount
of total evidence that disputes this idea than the far larger amount of
evidence that supports it.
OK, fine. But out there somewhere is a kook who claims that one of the
shells was not even fired that day.

So some kook might have 2 shots fired from that window and third fired
from somewhere else.
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Me, I subscribe to
Patrolman Hill's 12:37 description of the source of the shooting (as per
his witness)--upper right hand corner of the TSBD (as you're facing it on
Elm).
Who would be yet another witness independently corroborating the same
part of the same building.
Post by donald willis
And I assume that you would too, except that he goes a little
further and says, "second window from the end".
Which would be differing from some of the other witnesses only in a
single trivial detail: was it the very easternmost window, or was it the
second window from the end, but it is still converging on one of the two
Exactly where these witnesses all said they saw the long, narrow object.
Exactly where Luke Mooney found three shells.
In all cases it's one of the two or three easternmost windows on an
upper floor of the building.
And a real human was very *obviously* behind one of those very windows
holding a long, narrow object. If that object wasn't the single rifle
that fired all the shots, what was it then? And if it wasn't the rifle,
where was that rifle then? In a window where no one noticed it? In a
window below which no shells were found?
Post by donald willis
That may have been a mistake, but it's a significant one, I think, as the
identities of both the witness and the cop in question were covered up at
the hearings.
Being only one or two windows off from other witnesses is a
"significant" mistake? I don't agree.
Post by donald willis
Check the hearings volumes, and you'll see one cop claim
credit for the transmission; check the Warren Report, and you'll see that
a different cop was credited there!
Ok. So? I still do not see this as being what most people who speak
English worldwide would call "significant." Which officer took credit
for which broadcast comes nowhere near erasing the witnesses who were
*identified* who all said the long, narrow object was sticking out of
one of the two or three easternmost windows on one of the two or three
uppermost floors of a single building, with the additional detail that
the object was no longer there much less than a minute after the final
shot was fired.
mainframetech
2016-08-04 01:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
Yes, yes, yes, I went through many of the "the shells were planted" claims
years ago; all that is by now old, old news to me. But I don't recall
anything even remotely approaching irrefutable proof that they were
planted there. And nowhere near all of these witnesses claimed that Fritz
pocketed the shells *before* they were photographed, and we've got Luke
Mooney saying, plain as day, in his report submitted the day after the
assassination, that he found the shells on the floor and only *then*
leaned out the window, saw Fritz outside the building, and got Fritz's
**********
The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out
of the half opened window and signaled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain
Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the
Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the
shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webstr, Victory, and McCurley
came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers
got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area
over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing.
**********
**********
And the minute I squeezed between these two stacks of boxes, I had to turn
myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and
the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And,
also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made
the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don't
know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the
rifle could have lain--at the same angle that the shots were fired from.
So, at that time, I didn't lay my hands on anything, because I wanted to
save every evidence we could for fingerprints. So I leaned out the window,
the same window from which the shots were fired, looked down, and I saw
Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz standing right on the ground.
Well, so I hollered, or signaled I hollered, I more or less hollered. I
whistled a time or two before I got anybody to see me. And yet they was
all looking that way, too except the sheriff, they wasn't looking up.
And I told him to get the crime lab officers en route, that I had the
location spotted. So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything
until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers, city
officers.
**********
We have an awful lot of evidence converging on a window that is at or very
near the southeast corner of that building. Several witnesses said they
saw a long, narrow object sticking out of a window at or near that corner
of the building, even if they were inconsistent on which exact window it
was, how far open it was, and which floor it was on. We have three TSBD
employees on the fifth floor, and although one of them, James Jarman, said
his initial impression was that the sounds of the gunfire came from below
and to his left, Bonnie Ray Williams said that although he didn't pay much
attention to the first gunshot, he specifically said the next two gunshots
sounded as if they came from "right in the building." And Harold Norman
was even more specific: he said the gunfire sounded as if it came from the
floor directly above him, near the southeast corner of the sixth floor,
and additionally said he could hear the shells falling on the floor, and
he was at that moment almost directly below the location where Luke Mooney
said he first saw three rifle shells which was also where they were
photographed. And whether those shells were "planted" or not, is there
any other photograph proven to have been taken that day and no other day
which depicts even one rifle shell anywhere else in Dealey Plaza, inside
any building or outside of it? One would have to dismiss the majority of
statements made by all these witnesses combined to make the case that it
is more likely than not that no one was in the "nest" at 12:30 and that no
one fired any shots from anywhere near the southeast corner of an upper
floor of that building.
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. True enough, quite a few witnesses
said they thought the shots came from a completely different direction
than from that building, usually summarized under the single term "grassy
knoll," although in reality they described that general area in quite a
variety of ways, such as saying "railroad yards" (which is actually far
*behind* the "knoll" but still in the same general direction). But
otherwise look at what they actually said. Nearly every witness who named
any part of what we today call the "grassy knoll" or any direction fairly
consistent with that general area either specifically said that ALL the
shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other direction
for ANY of the shots. Then we have all the people who either named the
TSBD specifically or else said something at least somewhat consistent with
that general direction, such as saying "near the corner of Elm and
Houston" or naming the nearest building to the TSBD, the Dal-Tex. Nearly
all the witnesses who named any location at or near the TSBD said that ALL
the shots sounded as if they came from there, or else named no other
direction for ANY shot.
below and to his left.
Victoria Adams said all the shots sounded as if they came from below and
to her right, and she was on the fourth floor near the western end of
the building. They can't both be right, obviously. But Adams and
Jarman were still talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS.
James Altgens, when speaking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said they ALL
sounded as if they came from "the opposite side of the street," and I
think we all know where he was at the time the shots were fired.
Danny Arce, when speaking of the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that he thought
"they came from the direction of the railroad tracks near the parking
lot at the west end of the Depository building."
Marrion Baker, when discussing the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said he thought
they all sounded as if they came from the TSBD.
Virgie Baker, when asked about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that ALL of
them sounded like they came from the Triple Underpass.
Nellie Conally said that the SAME THREE SOUNDS that the witnesses above
described sounded to her as if they came from behind her and to her
right.
Welcome Barnett, talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS, said that although
he wasn't sure about the first sound, he thought the other two came from
the TSBD, and he did NOT specifically say he thought the first sound
came from a different direction.
Jane Berry said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from a location to the west
of the TSBD.
I think we already know where Howard Brennan said he thought the SAME
THREE SOUNDS came from. ;-)
Earle Brown said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the direction of the
TSBD.
Earle Cabell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from the TSBD. His wife
was one of the witnesses who said she saw a long, narrow object sticking
out from one of the easternmost windows of the sixth floor, and she made
no suggestion whatsoever that the SAME THREE SOUNDS described by her
husband came from any other direction.
Thomas Atkins said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from street level to his
right as he was riding down Houston Street going north toward the left
turn onto Elm.
Jack Bell said the SAME THREE SOUNDS came from above and to his right,
and this was just as the car he was riding in had turned the corner onto
Elm, so above and to his right would be consistent with the TSBD.
Weren't all these witnesses talking about the SAME THREE SOUNDS? Let's
take two of them as an example, although one could do this with any two
of these witnesses in which one of them named a different direction from
the other.
Victoria Adams, near the west end of the fourth floor of the TSBD, said
all three loud sounds came from below her and to her right, meaning from
the west. James Jarman, near the other end of the building on the floor
above her said all three sounds came from below him and to his left,
from the east. Now, are we actually to believe that Adams heard three
loud sounds that were NOT the same loud sounds that Jarman thought came
from the opposite direction? So Adams heard three loud sounds from the
west, but didn't hear the three OTHER loud sounds from the east? Not
even a trace of those "other" three sounds? Jarman heard the three loud
sounds from the east but didn't hear a trace of the "other" three loud
sounds from the west?
So Adams heard the sounds of a rifle firing from the west, but didn't
hear one of the shots from the "other" rifle to the east? And Jarman
clearly heard the three shots from the rifle to the east, but didn't
hear a single shot from the "other" rifle to the west?
Oh come now.
Rather obviously, both witnesses heard the same three sounds fired from
the same rifle, and one of them thought they were fired from the east
and the other thought they were fired from the west.
But what do all these witnesses agree on? They didn't agree on which
direction the same three sounds came from, obviously.
But they agreed that whatever direction it was, all the sounds came from
a single direction.
Ah, so you've corrected witnesses as to what they heard. What of what
they might have seen? :)

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-02 16:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Mmhmm. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Well, that's slightly better anyway. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
But we know where they were planted and who planted them.
Fritz the Klutz.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2016-08-03 16:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Mmhmm. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Well, that's slightly better anyway. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Well, if you had been following threads featuring bigdog & myself, you'd
know that I maintain that we *don't* know where the shells were found.
Three fairly impartial witnesses--a newsperson and 2 deputy sheriffs have
said that either Fritz picked up those shells or that they were handed to
him. After that, we don't know much about them until they--or reasonable
facsimiles--were "found" on the 6th floor. Tom Alyea says Fritz pocketed
them & gave them to Studebaker to put on the 6th floor....
But we know where they were planted and who planted them.
Fritz the Klutz.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Well, Alyea once said that *Studebaker* put them down, after Fritz gave
them to him.
Anthony Marsh
2016-08-01 19:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-7, John King wrote: cut
/WH16_CE_348
Post by John Reagor King
.pdf
, he was *not* referring to either the window
Post by John Reagor King
with the two TSBD employees or the window directly above it into which
Jackson said he saw the long, narrow object being withdrawn.
Post by donald willis
He's specifically NOT referring to the window (or windows) which Jackson
marked--first the west half of the easternmost window, then (when Specter
pointed out his error) the east half--as the window the rifle was in.
Clearly, Specter knows the difference between east & west; it's Jackson
who's sometimes confused. But Specter's "halfway" is all the way....
Ok, fine. Still don't understand what your point is. Once again you
originally acted as if it was an irrefutably proven fact that no one was
in the "nest" at 12:30 p.m. when that is nowhere even remotely close to an
irrefutably proven fact.
I guess we're both fated to fail, since no photo seems to exist showing
the "nest" at the time of the shooting
Mmhmm. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Post by donald willis
Post by John Reagor King
And more to the point, no matter what was said about "east" vs "west,"
Jackson was quite clear that the window out of which the long, narrow
object was protruding was directly, or almost directly above the window
out of which the two employees were looking. Since we already know that
they were at the east end of the fifth floor, it's rather a business of
splitting hairs to pounce on a witness regarding "east" or "west" or "wide
open" or "half open"
It was a split hair which intrigued counsel David Belin, who asked every
witness how wide the window was open. And the response he always got was
"wide open", or words to that effect....
Whatever. This still doesn't change the fact that several days ago you
stated, as if it was absolute fact, that there was no one in the "nest"
at 12:30.
OK, I might better have said that "I believe that there was no one in the
"nest" at 12:30....
Well, that's slightly better anyway. ;-)
Post by John Reagor King
Post by John Reagor King
Jackson doesn't have to specifically speak any form of the English word
"east" out loud for him to have quite obviously meant that, since that's
where he put the marks. It is incredible how you keep dancing around
this, Mr. Willis.
I'm saying that it's at least a tantalizing coincidence that Jackson first
marked the second window from the end, or the second pane from the end,
and that he testified that the window was fully open.
I'm saying that is a mere triviality, a typical, everyday, mundane
characteristic of humans to get some details right and some details wrong
in their recollections of events, most especially months after those
events occurred. But which details were mentioned most often by all the
witnesses combined who said anything about the long, narrow object? They
What long, narrow object? You mean the pipe that Euins saw?
Post by John Reagor King
converge, most often, on windows at or near the eastern end of the
building, wide open or not, and on floors that were closer to the top of
Not wide open.
Post by John Reagor King
the building than the bottom, and furthermore none of these witnesses
would have at the time had any possible way of knowing that rifle shells
would be found near one of those very windows, which is of course further
corroborating evidence.
Oh, you mean the shells that Fritz planted there?
Or you mean the bloody glove that Furhman planted?
Or the Top Secret document that the conspirators planted to frame
Drefyus? Or the fake document that E. Howard Hunt produced and tried to
plant in the National Archives?
Ralph Cinque
2016-08-02 16:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Keep it up. Every time you spew your blather, it bumps this into view,
which I like to see:

Oswald in the doorway: the new default
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-22 15:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Reagor King
*El snippo*
Post by donald willis
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
But he *was* on the sixth floor pumping bullets into Kennedy, Raff*.
No one was in the "nest" at 12:30 11/22/63....
*No* *one* was in the nest at that time? Not even a person who wasn't
Oswald? That's one of the boldest statements I've ever seen anyone make
He doesn't know it, but the acoustical evidence proves that 3 shots were
fired from the sniper's nest. I think the new theory is cute, that
Oswald shot JFK from the steps to the TSBD.
Post by John Reagor King
about this assassination, CT, LN or uncommitted. Several different
witnesses, in total independence of each other, said they saw a man in
that window and/or saw something long and narrow sticking out of the
window, the long, narrow object not seen anymore within seconds after the
shooting, with at least one or two of them saying they were watching as
Yeah, that's one of those Mossad water pipe guns.
Post by John Reagor King
the long, narrow was withdrawn back into the window. Even if it was fewer
than ten people who said they saw one or more of these things, it's just a
few too many to confidently make the statement that no human was in that
"nest" at the time. If I recall correctly, there is still today no
credible evidence that most, if not all, of these several people knew of
each other, so it would be silly to suggest that they all agreed to lie,
How about if they were all TOLD to lie by someone else?
Post by John Reagor King
since each one would not necessarily have any possible way of knowing the
You're right. They only talked together for about 5 minutes. Not enough
time to make up an elaborate hoax.
Post by John Reagor King
claims made by the others until afterward. Or are you going to suggest
that every single one of them was mistaken in what they claimed to have
Well, it's OK for YOU to claim that every single one of the conspiracy
witnesses was mistaken. Witnesses often are. Or call them liars.
Post by John Reagor King
seen? That all of the ones who said they saw the long, narrow object, for
example, were all mistaken in exactly the same way? And if so, what was
the cause of their error?
No. Brennan did not call it a pipe.
He did not call it a machine gun. Different witnesses make different
mistakes.
mainframetech
2016-07-16 04:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
I can help you there, since Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor
lunchroom at about 12:15pm. He was also seen in that same lunchroom at
about 12:31pm by Officer Baker and Roy Truly.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
I'm not "claiming" anything, I'm stating he was in the anteroom and
Baker SAW him there. No claims, just fact from the mouth of the officer.
And you have no clue as to whether Oswald was just arriving at the
lunchroom, or was returning from looking out the window of the anteroom
for one reason or another.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Why would Oswald avoid saying he was out front which would protect him
from accusations of murder, along with there being witnesses to him being
there?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
For someone who never knew Oswald, you certainly attribute an awful lot
of thoughts and motives to him. How about that Oswald wanted to appear
too cool so that he would go about his normal routines and not be bothered
that the POTUS was driving by?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So you can't help yourself and attribute normal motives to Oswald, when
he was not a normal person.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Well of course there was! He was in the lunchroom where he was SEEN!
Who out front reported that Oswald was with them and was seen to be there?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
A witness speaking surely about seeing Oswald in the lunchroom is a lot
more than "no leg to stand on". I rather think the person that can't find
any statement of sighting Oswald out front is the person with no leg to
stand on. There is nothing in that silly that looks like Oswald.

Chris
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-17 02:21:57 UTC
Permalink
It is extremely incompetent thinking to assume that since Oswald was just
reaching the lunch room when Baker saw him that he must have been there a
minute and a half before. If he was just getting there, then he was just
getting there. Period.

Carolyn Arnold's claim of seeing Oswald eating in the lunch room at 12:15
(although many say it was 12:25) is completely untenable. For one thing,
it contradicts Oswald, who said he ate in the first floor lunch room when
James Jarman and Harold Norman were around. So, did he eat two lunches
that day?

But, what is worse is that it contradicts Carolyn Arnold, who on November
26, 1963 told the FBI that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before
the shooting. Then, in March, she changed her story and said that she
didn't see Oswald at all. And then, 13 years later, she changed it again
and came up with the claim of seeing Oswald eating in the lunch room.

Again, the incompetence of Chris' thinking is glaring. He should realize
that Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revision is not like money in the bank. It
isn't bankable, Chris, and you can't spend it. It is not a fact in the
case. It is only a fact that she said it, not that it happened.

And to the others: you are shoveling sand to stop the tide. It is Oswald
in the doorway. Same Man. Same clothes. And it is way beyond the threshold
of certainty. You can't fight it; you can't stop it; and certainly not
with the incompetence you are showing.

http://tinypic.com/r/8yi0zr/9

Reality doesn't care about what you think and what you spew. Neither do I.
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-18 01:41:03 UTC
Permalink
I want to address just how bizarre and wacky it is for anyone to deny that
this is the same man wearing the same clothes, and that's because the
denial of it displays such gross ignorance of genetics, mathematics,
probability, and more.

Basically, your DNA results from the random mixing of the genes of your
four grandparents. The whole process is complicated by some genes being
"coding" vs. "non-coding" and some being "dominant" while others being
"recessive." And there are other complicating factors as well. So, it's
complicated. But, when we look at it simply, realizing that each person
has 46 chromosomes, including your 4 grandparents, it gives you some idea
of the immense number of unique and distinctive individuals that any
couple can make. Obviously, no couple can have hundreds of kids, but if
they they could, don't worry, no two would look identical. (excepting for
identical twins).

We often speak of someone looking like someone else, and usually it's
someone famous. We might say that someone looks like a certain celebrity
or movie star. But, it doesn't mean that if they were standing side by
side with the famous person that we'd have trouble telling them apart and
knowing who was who. When we see these likenesses, what's happening is
that our minds are filling in the gaps and making up the differences. They
are never that good, and it's because of the mathematics of human
genetics. Every individual really is a distinct human being- except for
identical twins.

Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady were NOT identical twins, and they
did not even look alike. They don't even look like they could be related.
It is simply a lie that they bore a striking resemblance to each other.

The idea that they looked alike and would photograph alike is ridiculous.

So, when you see the striking resemblance between Doorman and Oswald
(which includes everything but the hairline and the shape of the top of
the head, which were altered on Doorman) you know that they have to be the
same man.

There is simply no way that Lovelady who was shorter than Oswald but
weighed 40 pounds more than he did, would reproduce the same as Oswald in
a photograph.

But so far, we have only talked about the likeness of the man. What about
the likeness of the clothes? Are we supposed to believe that Oswald and
Lovelady not only looked alike, despite the vast difference in their
weights and builds, but they just happened to be dressed precisely the
same on 11/22/63?

It's the same outfit: a long-sleeved outer shirt that is unbuttoned and
sprawled open over a while t-shirt with a low, sunken collar. That is a
very distinctive outfit, and there is no way that both Oswald and Lovelady
were dressed like that.

What I'm saying is that you can't have two men looking this much alike and
dressing this much alike because it defies the reality of genetics and the
reality of clothing. They have got to be the same man because otherwise,
it is a very bizarre, freaky, unbelievable occurrence, and I mean
mathematically unbelievable. You would have to multiple the remote
"different man odds" with the remote "different clothes odds." So, the
chance of it happening would be 1 in whatever that multiplied number
is.

This is 2016, a time of great progress and advancement in science and
technology. So, how is it possible that at this advanced time that people
can still harbor the childish, uneducated, and extremely obtuse notion
that these are different men?

http://tinypic.com/r/2zf96jc/9

They are not different men. They are the same man wearing the same
clothes. And, it is pure denialism to deny it, meaning the willful
rejection of reality and common sense.

Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at
the time of the murder. That is as certain as any other fact you can name
about the physical universe. And, it is very much time for the nonsense of
denying it to stop. That's because it's 2016, and nobody can make such a
preposterous denial of reality in 2016. This isn't the Dark Ages, and you
can't get away with it.
mainframetech
2016-07-19 01:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
I want to address just how bizarre and wacky it is for anyone to deny that
this is the same man wearing the same clothes, and that's because the
denial of it displays such gross ignorance of genetics, mathematics,
probability, and more.
Basically, your DNA results from the random mixing of the genes of your
four grandparents. The whole process is complicated by some genes being
"coding" vs. "non-coding" and some being "dominant" while others being
"recessive." And there are other complicating factors as well. So, it's
complicated. But, when we look at it simply, realizing that each person
has 46 chromosomes, including your 4 grandparents, it gives you some idea
of the immense number of unique and distinctive individuals that any
couple can make. Obviously, no couple can have hundreds of kids, but if
they they could, don't worry, no two would look identical. (excepting for
identical twins).
We often speak of someone looking like someone else, and usually it's
someone famous. We might say that someone looks like a certain celebrity
or movie star. But, it doesn't mean that if they were standing side by
side with the famous person that we'd have trouble telling them apart and
knowing who was who. When we see these likenesses, what's happening is
that our minds are filling in the gaps and making up the differences. They
are never that good, and it's because of the mathematics of human
genetics. Every individual really is a distinct human being- except for
identical twins.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady were NOT identical twins, and they
did not even look alike. They don't even look like they could be related.
It is simply a lie that they bore a striking resemblance to each other.
The idea that they looked alike and would photograph alike is ridiculous.
So, when you see the striking resemblance between Doorman and Oswald
(which includes everything but the hairline and the shape of the top of
the head, which were altered on Doorman) you know that they have to be the
same man.
There is simply no way that Lovelady who was shorter than Oswald but
weighed 40 pounds more than he did, would reproduce the same as Oswald in
a photograph.
But so far, we have only talked about the likeness of the man. What about
the likeness of the clothes? Are we supposed to believe that Oswald and
Lovelady not only looked alike, despite the vast difference in their
weights and builds, but they just happened to be dressed precisely the
same on 11/22/63?
It's the same outfit: a long-sleeved outer shirt that is unbuttoned and
sprawled open over a while t-shirt with a low, sunken collar. That is a
very distinctive outfit, and there is no way that both Oswald and Lovelady
were dressed like that.
What I'm saying is that you can't have two men looking this much alike and
dressing this much alike because it defies the reality of genetics and the
reality of clothing. They have got to be the same man because otherwise,
it is a very bizarre, freaky, unbelievable occurrence, and I mean
mathematically unbelievable. You would have to multiple the remote
"different man odds" with the remote "different clothes odds." So, the
chance of it happening would be 1 in whatever that multiplied number
is.
This is 2016, a time of great progress and advancement in science and
technology. So, how is it possible that at this advanced time that people
can still harbor the childish, uneducated, and extremely obtuse notion
that these are different men?
http://tinypic.com/r/2zf96jc/9
They are not different men. They are the same man wearing the same
clothes. And, it is pure denialism to deny it, meaning the willful
rejection of reality and common sense.
Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at
the time of the murder. That is as certain as any other fact you can name
about the physical universe. And, it is very much time for the nonsense of
denying it to stop. That's because it's 2016, and nobody can make such a
preposterous denial of reality in 2016. This isn't the Dark Ages, and you
can't get away with it.
What a shame that you're so unaware of the facts. Carolyn Arnold saw
Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and Baker and Truly
saw him in the same place at about 12:31pm. Not much chance to get to the
6th floor, or the front door and run back to the lunchroom for him. And
sine he considered JFK to be a great leader, he wouldn't want to kill him
anyway. Of course, 'Mac' Wallace had a good reason to kill JFK, for his
boss LBJ.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-20 01:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ralph Cinque
I want to address just how bizarre and wacky it is for anyone to deny that
this is the same man wearing the same clothes, and that's because the
denial of it displays such gross ignorance of genetics, mathematics,
probability, and more.
Basically, your DNA results from the random mixing of the genes of your
four grandparents. The whole process is complicated by some genes being
"coding" vs. "non-coding" and some being "dominant" while others being
"recessive." And there are other complicating factors as well. So, it's
complicated. But, when we look at it simply, realizing that each person
has 46 chromosomes, including your 4 grandparents, it gives you some idea
of the immense number of unique and distinctive individuals that any
couple can make. Obviously, no couple can have hundreds of kids, but if
they they could, don't worry, no two would look identical. (excepting for
identical twins).
We often speak of someone looking like someone else, and usually it's
someone famous. We might say that someone looks like a certain celebrity
or movie star. But, it doesn't mean that if they were standing side by
side with the famous person that we'd have trouble telling them apart and
knowing who was who. When we see these likenesses, what's happening is
that our minds are filling in the gaps and making up the differences. They
are never that good, and it's because of the mathematics of human
genetics. Every individual really is a distinct human being- except for
identical twins.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady were NOT identical twins, and they
did not even look alike. They don't even look like they could be related.
It is simply a lie that they bore a striking resemblance to each other.
The idea that they looked alike and would photograph alike is ridiculous.
So, when you see the striking resemblance between Doorman and Oswald
(which includes everything but the hairline and the shape of the top of
the head, which were altered on Doorman) you know that they have to be the
same man.
There is simply no way that Lovelady who was shorter than Oswald but
weighed 40 pounds more than he did, would reproduce the same as Oswald in
a photograph.
But so far, we have only talked about the likeness of the man. What about
the likeness of the clothes? Are we supposed to believe that Oswald and
Lovelady not only looked alike, despite the vast difference in their
weights and builds, but they just happened to be dressed precisely the
same on 11/22/63?
It's the same outfit: a long-sleeved outer shirt that is unbuttoned and
sprawled open over a while t-shirt with a low, sunken collar. That is a
very distinctive outfit, and there is no way that both Oswald and Lovelady
were dressed like that.
What I'm saying is that you can't have two men looking this much alike and
dressing this much alike because it defies the reality of genetics and the
reality of clothing. They have got to be the same man because otherwise,
it is a very bizarre, freaky, unbelievable occurrence, and I mean
mathematically unbelievable. You would have to multiple the remote
"different man odds" with the remote "different clothes odds." So, the
chance of it happening would be 1 in whatever that multiplied number
is.
This is 2016, a time of great progress and advancement in science and
technology. So, how is it possible that at this advanced time that people
can still harbor the childish, uneducated, and extremely obtuse notion
that these are different men?
http://tinypic.com/r/2zf96jc/9
They are not different men. They are the same man wearing the same
clothes. And, it is pure denialism to deny it, meaning the willful
rejection of reality and common sense.
Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at
the time of the murder. That is as certain as any other fact you can name
about the physical universe. And, it is very much time for the nonsense of
denying it to stop. That's because it's 2016, and nobody can make such a
preposterous denial of reality in 2016. This isn't the Dark Ages, and you
can't get away with it.
What a shame that you're so unaware of the facts. Carolyn Arnold saw
Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and Baker and Truly
No, she did not.
Post by mainframetech
saw him in the same place at about 12:31pm. Not much chance to get to the
6th floor, or the front door and run back to the lunchroom for him. And
sine he considered JFK to be a great leader, he wouldn't want to kill him
anyway. Of course, 'Mac' Wallace had a good reason to kill JFK, for his
boss LBJ.
Chris
Jason Burke
2016-07-19 02:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
I want to address just how bizarre and wacky it is for anyone to deny that
this is the same man wearing the same clothes, and that's because the
denial of it displays such gross ignorance of genetics, mathematics,
probability,
This from the man who thinks the probability of pulling two correct keno
balls from 50 is (1/50) * (1/49)

Just for kicks, Ralph, what do you think the probability of pulling 49
balls out of 50 is?
Post by Ralph Cinque
and more.
Basically, your DNA results from the random mixing of the genes of your
four grandparents. The whole process is complicated by some genes being
"coding" vs. "non-coding" and some being "dominant" while others being
"recessive." And there are other complicating factors as well. So, it's
complicated. But, when we look at it simply, realizing that each person
has 46 chromosomes, including your 4 grandparents, it gives you some idea
of the immense number of unique and distinctive individuals that any
couple can make. Obviously, no couple can have hundreds of kids, but if
they they could, don't worry, no two would look identical. (excepting for
identical twins).
We often speak of someone looking like someone else, and usually it's
someone famous. We might say that someone looks like a certain celebrity
or movie star. But, it doesn't mean that if they were standing side by
side with the famous person that we'd have trouble telling them apart and
knowing who was who. When we see these likenesses, what's happening is
that our minds are filling in the gaps and making up the differences. They
are never that good, and it's because of the mathematics of human
genetics. Every individual really is a distinct human being- except for
identical twins.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady were NOT identical twins, and they
did not even look alike. They don't even look like they could be related.
It is simply a lie that they bore a striking resemblance to each other.
The idea that they looked alike and would photograph alike is ridiculous.
So, when you see the striking resemblance between Doorman and Oswald
(which includes everything but the hairline and the shape of the top of
the head, which were altered on Doorman) you know that they have to be the
same man.
There is simply no way that Lovelady who was shorter than Oswald but
weighed 40 pounds more than he did, would reproduce the same as Oswald in
a photograph.
But so far, we have only talked about the likeness of the man. What about
the likeness of the clothes? Are we supposed to believe that Oswald and
Lovelady not only looked alike, despite the vast difference in their
weights and builds, but they just happened to be dressed precisely the
same on 11/22/63?
It's the same outfit: a long-sleeved outer shirt that is unbuttoned and
sprawled open over a while t-shirt with a low, sunken collar. That is a
very distinctive outfit, and there is no way that both Oswald and Lovelady
were dressed like that.
What I'm saying is that you can't have two men looking this much alike and
dressing this much alike because it defies the reality of genetics and the
reality of clothing. They have got to be the same man because otherwise,
it is a very bizarre, freaky, unbelievable occurrence, and I mean
mathematically unbelievable. You would have to multiple the remote
"different man odds" with the remote "different clothes odds." So, the
chance of it happening would be 1 in whatever that multiplied number
is.
This is 2016, a time of great progress and advancement in science and
technology. So, how is it possible that at this advanced time that people
can still harbor the childish, uneducated, and extremely obtuse notion
that these are different men?
http://tinypic.com/r/2zf96jc/9
They are not different men. They are the same man wearing the same
clothes. And, it is pure denialism to deny it, meaning the willful
rejection of reality and common sense.
Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at
the time of the murder. That is as certain as any other fact you can name
about the physical universe. And, it is very much time for the nonsense of
denying it to stop. That's because it's 2016, and nobody can make such a
preposterous denial of reality in 2016. This isn't the Dark Ages, and you
can't get away with it.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2016-07-20 04:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
I want to address just how bizarre and wacky it is for anyone to deny that
this is the same man wearing the same clothes, and that's because the
denial of it displays such gross ignorance of genetics, mathematics,
probability,
This from the man who thinks the probability of pulling two correct keno
balls from 50 is (1/50) * (1/49)
Just for kicks, Ralph, what do you think the probability of pulling 49
balls out of 50 is?
Post by Ralph Cinque
and more.
Basically, your DNA results from the random mixing of the genes of your
four grandparents. The whole process is complicated by some genes being
"coding" vs. "non-coding" and some being "dominant" while others being
"recessive." And there are other complicating factors as well. So, it's
complicated. But, when we look at it simply, realizing that each person
has 46 chromosomes, including your 4 grandparents, it gives you some idea
of the immense number of unique and distinctive individuals that any
couple can make. Obviously, no couple can have hundreds of kids, but if
they they could, don't worry, no two would look identical. (excepting for
identical twins).
We often speak of someone looking like someone else, and usually it's
someone famous. We might say that someone looks like a certain celebrity
or movie star. But, it doesn't mean that if they were standing side by
side with the famous person that we'd have trouble telling them apart and
knowing who was who. When we see these likenesses, what's happening is
that our minds are filling in the gaps and making up the differences. They
are never that good, and it's because of the mathematics of human
genetics. Every individual really is a distinct human being- except for
identical twins.
Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady were NOT identical twins, and they
did not even look alike. They don't even look like they could be related.
It is simply a lie that they bore a striking resemblance to each other.
The idea that they looked alike and would photograph alike is ridiculous.
So, when you see the striking resemblance between Doorman and Oswald
(which includes everything but the hairline and the shape of the top of
the head, which were altered on Doorman) you know that they have to be the
same man.
There is simply no way that Lovelady who was shorter than Oswald but
weighed 40 pounds more than he did, would reproduce the same as Oswald in
a photograph.
But so far, we have only talked about the likeness of the man. What about
the likeness of the clothes? Are we supposed to believe that Oswald and
Lovelady not only looked alike, despite the vast difference in their
weights and builds, but they just happened to be dressed precisely the
same on 11/22/63?
It's the same outfit: a long-sleeved outer shirt that is unbuttoned and
sprawled open over a while t-shirt with a low, sunken collar. That is a
very distinctive outfit, and there is no way that both Oswald and Lovelady
were dressed like that.
What I'm saying is that you can't have two men looking this much alike and
dressing this much alike because it defies the reality of genetics and the
reality of clothing. They have got to be the same man because otherwise,
it is a very bizarre, freaky, unbelievable occurrence, and I mean
mathematically unbelievable. You would have to multiple the remote
"different man odds" with the remote "different clothes odds." So, the
chance of it happening would be 1 in whatever that multiplied number
is.
This is 2016, a time of great progress and advancement in science and
technology. So, how is it possible that at this advanced time that people
can still harbor the childish, uneducated, and extremely obtuse notion
that these are different men?
http://tinypic.com/r/2zf96jc/9
They are not different men. They are the same man wearing the same
clothes. And, it is pure denialism to deny it, meaning the willful
rejection of reality and common sense.
Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at
the time of the murder. That is as certain as any other fact you can name
about the physical universe. And, it is very much time for the nonsense of
denying it to stop. That's because it's 2016, and nobody can make such a
preposterous denial of reality in 2016. This isn't the Dark Ages, and you
can't get away with it.
Ralph is only good at pulling at two balls, uh……...
mainframetech
2016-07-18 15:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
It is extremely incompetent thinking to assume that since Oswald was just
reaching the lunch room when Baker saw him that he must have been there a
minute and a half before. If he was just getting there, then he was just
getting there. Period.
That's your assumption. Baker didn't say he was just getting there.
And there are other reasons for Oswald to be where he was and doing what
he was doing.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Carolyn Arnold's claim of seeing Oswald eating in the lunch room at 12:15
(although many say it was 12:25) is completely untenable. For one thing,
it contradicts Oswald, who said he ate in the first floor lunch room when
James Jarman and Harold Norman were around. So, did he eat two lunches
that day?
You may have forgotten that he was on the 1st floor at first, and said
he was going up for a soda, which it appears he did. Think it through.
And Carolyn doesn't "claim" anything, she states flatly that she saw
Oswald at about 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom. I'm not aware of
ANYONE out front or on the steps saying they saw Oswald at all. If you
know of such a statement, let me know.
Post by Ralph Cinque
But, what is worse is that it contradicts Carolyn Arnold, who on November
26, 1963 told the FBI that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before
the shooting. Then, in March, she changed her story and said that she
didn't see Oswald at all. And then, 13 years later, she changed it again
and came up with the claim of seeing Oswald eating in the lunch room.
Try using your head for other than a hammer and do some research.
Carolyn did NOT make that statement that the FBI recorded. The FBI made
that up as part of their campaign to support the 'lone nut' scenario.
Same for the 2nd Arnold statement. She never saw either because they were
302 file entries which were mostly internal to the FBI. Carolyn Arnold
learned for the first time what they had put in the file in about 1978
when a reporter mentioned it to her and asked her about her sighting.
She then gave her true statement to 2 reporters, and it was that she had
seen Oswald at 12:15pm in the 2nd floor lunchroom. she was clear on that.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Again, the incompetence of Chris' thinking is glaring. He should realize
that Carolyn Arnold's 1978 revision is not like money in the bank. It
isn't bankable, Chris, and you can't spend it. It is not a fact in the
case. It is only a fact that she said it, not that it happened.
The complete failure of Ralph's attempts to manipulate the evidence
won't work here. Not as long as I'm here to oppose it and explain the
truth each time he fails. And as to what happened, we have to make
decisions each of us on our own, and Ralph, your efforts to fool people
into believing the silly things you come up with aren't working. The
responses you get prove it. Why else would you go get involved in the
OIC, but to have a group that will listen to you?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And to the others: you are shoveling sand to stop the tide. It is Oswald
in the doorway. Same Man. Same clothes. And it is way beyond the threshold
of certainty. You can't fight it; you can't stop it; and certainly not
with the incompetence you are showing.
http://tinypic.com/r/8yi0zr/9
Reality doesn't care about what you think and what you spew. Neither do I.
A glutton for punishment, for sure.

Chris
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-19 01:51:13 UTC
Permalink
You don't know how to think, Chris. You obviously never heard of Occam's
Razor. Baker saw Oswald as he was entering the lunch room. That's the only
thing factual we have. You're not entitled to speculate that he may have
been in the lunch room a minute and a half before and was coming back. The
odds of that are infinitesimal, but worse than that: there is no factual
basis whatsoever to make the claim, even theoretically. It's pure fantasy,
and, it is not the way a responsible, mature person will think.

And now you are distinguishing between "claiming" and "stating flatly"? I
state flatly that you are inclined to ID-10T errors.

Carolyn Arnold signed her second FBI statement made in March 1964 in which
she stated that she didn't see Oswald at all around the time of the
assassination. That's signed as in putting your signature on an important
document.

And exactly how warped are you, Chris? How do you figure that having
Carolyn Arnold say that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the
assassination supports the lone gunman story? Are you flat-out out of your
mind?

Chris, there is a reason why more people have joined my JFK research
organization than any other, while nobody has heard of you. It's because
of your ID-10T errors.
mainframetech
2016-07-20 04:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
You don't know how to think, Chris. You obviously never heard of Occam's
Razor. Baker saw Oswald as he was entering the lunch room. That's the only
thing factual we have. You're not entitled to speculate that he may have
been in the lunch room a minute and a half before and was coming back. The
odds of that are infinitesimal, but worse than that: there is no factual
basis whatsoever to make the claim, even theoretically. It's pure fantasy,
and, it is not the way a responsible, mature person will think.
Try and get it right for once, Ralph. Oswald WAS NOT seen by Baker
"entering the lunchroom". Go check Baker's testimony, and then check
Truly's too. You can't follow the simplest testimony because of your
obsession with the front door where Oswald wasn't. Your proofs are all as
fuzzy as your thinking and nothing and no one has said that Oswald was
with them at the front door. However, Carolyn Arnold stated clearly that
she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm. And he was
seen there by Truly and Baker at 12:31pm. Not much chance he left in
between only to return.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And now you are distinguishing between "claiming" and "stating flatly"? I
state flatly that you are inclined to ID-10T errors.
Carolyn Arnold signed her second FBI statement made in March 1964 in which
she stated that she didn't see Oswald at all around the time of the
assassination. That's signed as in putting your signature on an important
document.
Bullshit! Show me the signature. That was an FBI 302 file and how
often did the FBI ask witnesses to sign it? Never in my experience.
They are filled out by agents reporting on what they encountered and what
they were told by various people. You've been a sucker for the FBI, who
were busy trying to support the 'lone nut' scenario that Hoover favored,
and changing witness statements from the beginning of the JFK case. They
have been PROVEN to have modified witness statements at other times in
this case. The second Carolyn Arnold story was made up by the FBI because
the first one they realized suggested that Oswald wasn't involved in the
shooting, so they made up the second innocuous version so that Oswald
wasn't covered any longer.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And exactly how warped are you, Chris? How do you figure that having
Carolyn Arnold say that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the
assassination supports the lone gunman story? Are you flat-out out of your
mind?
I guess you're too listening to too many stupid people to think your
way through this problem. So I'll have to baby you along. Carolyn Arnold
did NOT make any statement about any doorway. The FBI has been proven to
have changed witness statements for there own reasons, and wrote down made
up crap instead. The first 2 statements in the 302 files of the FBI were
made by the FBI. When Carolyn heard accidentally that those statements
were recorded in her name, she immediately corrected them and gave her
real statement. She had no reason to lie at that time in 1978 when she
found out about her statement. The FBI had recorded a phony statement for
her and she would never have seen or heard about it, but reporter
mentioned it to her which she corrected on the spot. Go check it out and
stop the foolishness.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Chris, there is a reason why more people have joined my JFK research
organization than any other, while nobody has heard of you. It's because
of your ID-10T errors.
Well, Ralph, as usual you've made a mess out of your social
relationships once again with your nasty mouth. I began with you in a
normal conversational mode, but you quickly devolved into ad hominem
attacks and nasty insults a long time ago, and that seems to have happened
the moment I said anything you didn't like. That will never do. You
really must see a therapist about your anger issues, and your inability to
maintain a normal relationship with someone who agrees with you on basics
in this case, like Oswald being innocent of shooting at JFK. You're
losing it, seek help.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-17 17:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ralph Cinque
To people who fight me by saying that Oswald wasn't in the doorway because
he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, I say fine. That's because
I know they have to say that. It's a default for them. It's built-in.
It's the people who admit that Oswald was innocent and nowhere near the
6th floor, and yet who dispute and deny his presence in the doorway, that
I really have a problem with. They are willing to take up arms and go to
war with me over this, and usually without specifying where he was
instead. They don't know where Oswald was, and they don't care. They're
not even interested in finding out. They are only interested in fighting
that he was in the doorway.
I can help you there, since Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor
lunchroom at about 12:15pm. He was also seen in that same lunchroom at
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
about 12:31pm by Officer Baker and Roy Truly.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Some have tried to claim that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at
12:30, that when Baker got there at 12:31.5, Oswald had already been there
a while. But, those people are ignorant of the facts. The fact is that
Baker saw Oswald before he even entered the lunch room. Oswald was still
moving through the anteroom when Baker first saw him. It means that Oswald
was just getting to the lunch room, just arriving there when Baker first
saw him. And, that means he wasn't there a minute and a half before.
I'm not "claiming" anything, I'm stating he was in the anteroom and
Baker SAW him there. No claims, just fact from the mouth of the officer.
And you have no clue as to whether Oswald was just arriving at the
lunchroom, or was returning from looking out the window of the anteroom
for one reason or another.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Captain Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was
"eating lunch with other employees" during the assassination. That was a
lie. He didn't even name the other employees. And Joseph Ball, his
interrogator, didn't even ask. The fact is that Oswald ate in the domino
room at the beginning of the lunch break, and he ate alone, as he always
James Jarman and Harold Norman. He didn't say he ate with them. It was
1963 in Dallas, Texas, and white guys and black guys didn't eat together.
Period. It just wasn't done. But, Fritz took what Oswald said and twisted
it into something else, all to avoid telling Joseph Ball the truth- that
Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the
shooting.
Why would Oswald avoid saying he was out front which would protect him
from accusations of murder, along with there being witnesses to him being
there?
Because he told the truth. He was in the Domino room.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ralph Cinque
Like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 45 minutes
before the motorcade arrived. So, he had three-quarters of an hour to eat
lunch before the President got there. The very idea that he would put off
eating lunch, only to eat it later and miss seeing this rare historic,
once-in-a-lifetime event is preposterous. Nobody would do that, and Oswald
certainly didn't. It is an outrage that people take it for granted that,
of course, Lee Harvey Oswald had no interest in seeing John F. Kennedy
because he was, after all, weird, wacky, crazy, eccentric Oswald. He'd
rather eat a cheese sandwich and an apple that lay eyes on the President
of the United States and his glamorous wife.
For someone who never knew Oswald, you certainly attribute an awful lot
of thoughts and motives to him. How about that Oswald wanted to appear
too cool so that he would go about his normal routines and not be bothered
that the POTUS was driving by?
Post by Ralph Cinque
Plus, Oswald had nothing else to do for those 45 minutes before the
motorcade arrived. He had no errand to run, no conversation to have, no
book to read, no puzzle to work, no call to make, no letter to write. And,
he hadn't eaten any breakfast, and he had worked all morning. So, why
wouldn't he be ready to eat? Why would he postpone eating?
My point is that the default doesn't lie with the people who are fighting
me. The default is that Lee Harvey Oswald, like any other normal person,
would have normal priorities. And in this case, the normal priority was to
go see the President of the United States and the First Lady. That would
be true even if he had other things to do, but in this case, Oswald didn't
have anything else remotely to do.
So you can't help yourself and attribute normal motives to Oswald, when
he was not a normal person.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So yes, Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and there isn't
even any other place he could have been. Once you realize that he was not
on the 6th floor pumping rounds into Kennedy, then you know he had to be
in the doorway. THERE IS NO PLACE ELSE HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Well of course there was! He was in the lunchroom where he was SEEN!
Who out front reported that Oswald was with them and was seen to be there?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And that is where things stand this July 2016. The people professing to
believe in Oswald's innocence who are fighting his presence in the doorway
do not have a leg to stand on. And, they are just as disingenuous and
corrupt as the those who say he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy.
I don't want to hear any more general denunciations. If you want to fight
about this, you better have a damn good alternative as to where Oswald
was. THE DEFAULT HAS SHIFTED. Now, the default is that Oswald was in the
doorway, and the burden of proof is on those who are denying it.
http://tinypic.com/r/fz22r9/9
A witness speaking surely about seeing Oswald in the lunchroom is a lot
more than "no leg to stand on". I rather think the person that can't find
any statement of sighting Oswald out front is the person with no leg to
stand on. There is nothing in that silly that looks like Oswald.
Chris
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-18 21:05:51 UTC
Permalink
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30? And regardless, why
would Oswald choose to miss seeing JFK? To hang around in the Domino Room?
Is that what you would do? If not, then why are you imparting such
behavior to Oswald?

Of course, you, Marsh, are not at all an Oswald defender. You think he
killed Tippit but not Kennedy. And so far, after decades of trying, you
haven't convinced a single person that you are right.

Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and that is what he was
doing at 12:30. We can see him there in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman
film. And we'd see him in other media if not for devious efforts to
obscure other views of him in the doorway.

Marsh, it's uncanny: you are wrong about every single thing, every single
aspect of the JFK assassination. You get nothing right. Absolutely
nothing.
donald willis
2016-07-19 18:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....

dcw
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-20 04:40:43 UTC
Permalink
That is ridiculous, and no one should believe it. Oswald did NOT eat after
the assassination. You can't even fit it in timewise. Hey! Could you
possibly improve your game, dcw? It would be much appreciated.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2016-07-21 02:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is ridiculous, and no one should believe it. Oswald did NOT eat after
the assassination. You can't even fit it in timewise. Hey! Could you
possibly improve your game, dcw? It would be much appreciated.
Sorry to hear about your friend, Ralph. You must have been quite close.
donald willis
2016-07-22 00:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is ridiculous, and no one should believe it. Oswald did NOT eat after
the assassination. You can't even fit it in timewise. Hey! Could you
possibly improve your game, dcw? It would be much appreciated.
Sorry, I guess it was Bud who swore by Bookhout's solo report. I don't,
at all.

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-20 15:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
s***@yahoo.com
2016-07-21 14:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.

From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-22 03:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.
Yes, you are right that I am right that some people are confused about
how time works.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
Again, that is just an assumption. Do you know what happens when someone
ASSuMEs? Oswald could have already had the Coke in his hand, heard the cop
coming and turned around and walked back into the lunch room. Or maybe he
always had the Coke and ran down the stairs intending to act casual and
the Coke would be his alibi.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Do you understand what hearsay is? Someone told me you were kidnapped by
aliens. Is that a fact?
s***@yahoo.com
2016-07-24 17:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.
Yes, you are right that I am right that some people are confused about
how time works.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
Again, that is just an assumption. Do you know what happens when someone
ASSuMEs? Oswald could have already had the Coke in his hand, heard the cop
coming and turned around and walked back into the lunch room. Or maybe he
always had the Coke and ran down the stairs intending to act casual and
the Coke would be his alibi.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Do you understand what hearsay is? Someone told me you were kidnapped by
aliens. Is that a fact?
This is what Bookhout reported not me. I made no claims about what Oswald
did or said he did. I merely provided what Bookhout reported.

You asked for a source of the Bookhout claim; I provided it.

You need to take your arguments up with him not me.
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-25 16:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.
Yes, you are right that I am right that some people are confused about
how time works.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
Again, that is just an assumption. Do you know what happens when someone
ASSuMEs? Oswald could have already had the Coke in his hand, heard the cop
coming and turned around and walked back into the lunch room. Or maybe he
always had the Coke and ran down the stairs intending to act casual and
the Coke would be his alibi.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Do you understand what hearsay is? Someone told me you were kidnapped by
aliens. Is that a fact?
This is what Bookhout reported not me. I made no claims about what Oswald
did or said he did. I merely provided what Bookhout reported.
You asked for a source of the Bookhout claim; I provided it.
You need to take your arguments up with him not me.
You are citing hearsay and then claiming it is fact.
s***@yahoo.com
2016-07-28 03:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.
Yes, you are right that I am right that some people are confused about
how time works.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
Again, that is just an assumption. Do you know what happens when someone
ASSuMEs? Oswald could have already had the Coke in his hand, heard the cop
coming and turned around and walked back into the lunch room. Or maybe he
always had the Coke and ran down the stairs intending to act casual and
the Coke would be his alibi.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Do you understand what hearsay is? Someone told me you were kidnapped by
aliens. Is that a fact?
This is what Bookhout reported not me. I made no claims about what Oswald
did or said he did. I merely provided what Bookhout reported.
You asked for a source of the Bookhout claim; I provided it.
You need to take your arguments up with him not me.
You are citing hearsay and then claiming it is fact.
Sorry, nowhere did I say it was a fact. The fact that you can't quote me
indicates that your claim is groundless.

You asked for a cite; I linked to what he reported.

If you followed your own demands against hearsay you couldn't post
anything here.
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-29 21:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30?
Maybe it was someone else, then, who believed the solo Bookhout report
wherein Oswald supposedly said he went to the domino room to eat lunch
after running into the cop....
Would you mind quoting that for me? Some people are confused about how
time works.
Post by donald willis
dcw
He's right. That is what Bookhout reported.
Yes, you are right that I am right that some people are confused about
how time works.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
From his report: "Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963 at the time of
the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police
officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just
purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police
Again, that is just an assumption. Do you know what happens when someone
ASSuMEs? Oswald could have already had the Coke in his hand, heard the cop
coming and turned around and walked back into the lunch room. Or maybe he
always had the Coke and ran down the stairs intending to act casual and
the Coke would be his alibi.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
officer came into the room with a pistol drawn and asked him if he worked
there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the
police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the
building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND
STOOD AROUND AND HAD LUNCH IN THE EMPLOYEE LUNCH ROOM." (my emphasis)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Do you understand what hearsay is? Someone told me you were kidnapped by
aliens. Is that a fact?
This is what Bookhout reported not me. I made no claims about what Oswald
did or said he did. I merely provided what Bookhout reported.
You asked for a source of the Bookhout claim; I provided it.
You need to take your arguments up with him not me.
You are citing hearsay and then claiming it is fact.
Sorry, nowhere did I say it was a fact. The fact that you can't quote me
indicates that your claim is groundless.
You asked for a cite; I linked to what he reported.
If you followed your own demands against hearsay you couldn't post
anything here.
Moi? You mean my own research and opinions are only hearsay?
Maybe some documents are only hearsay, but I don't rely on them.
Ralph Cinque
2016-07-22 03:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Steve, that isn't even remotely plausible. Both Truly and Baker testified
that Oswald had no Coke when they saw him. So, he didn't his Coke until
after they left. So, he hadn't just purchased a Coke when they came in.
And, he certainly didn't eat lunch after the shooting as there wasn't even
time for it. You realize that he gets back to his room by 1:00, don't
you?

Here's a thought, Steve: it's in writing, but it's wrong. I'll say it
again: it's in writing, but it's wrong.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2016-07-22 19:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
Steve, that isn't even remotely plausible. Both Truly and Baker testified
that Oswald had no Coke when they saw him. So, he didn't his Coke until
after they left. So, he hadn't just purchased a Coke when they came in.
And, he certainly didn't eat lunch after the shooting as there wasn't even
time for it. You realize that he gets back to his room by 1:00, don't
you?
Here's a thought, Steve: it's in writing, but it's wrong. I'll say it
again: it's in writing, but it's wrong.
What's wrong, Ralph ? Having another one of your 'little spells' ?
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-23 01:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
Steve, that isn't even remotely plausible. Both Truly and Baker testified
that Oswald had no Coke when they saw him. So, he didn't his Coke until
Not exactly.
Selection bias.
Post by Ralph Cinque
after they left. So, he hadn't just purchased a Coke when they came in.
How do you know he didn't have that Coke all the time and was just using
it as a prop to pretend that he just got to the lunch room?
Post by Ralph Cinque
And, he certainly didn't eat lunch after the shooting as there wasn't even
time for it. You realize that he gets back to his room by 1:00, don't
you?
Yeah, so you say it takes Oswald 20 minutes to eat a cheese sandwich.
Was a cheese sandwich ever found. i bet it must be pretty moldy by now.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Here's a thought, Steve: it's in writing, but it's wrong. I'll say it
again: it's in writing, but it's wrong.
Your messages are in writing and they're wrong.
mainframetech
2016-07-20 04:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30? And regardless, why
would Oswald choose to miss seeing JFK? To hang around in the Domino Room?
Is that what you would do? If not, then why are you imparting such
behavior to Oswald?
Of course, you, Marsh, are not at all an Oswald defender. You think he
killed Tippit but not Kennedy. And so far, after decades of trying, you
haven't convinced a single person that you are right.
Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and that is what he was
doing at 12:30. We can see him there in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman
film. And we'd see him in other media if not for devious efforts to
obscure other views of him in the doorway.
Marsh, it's uncanny: you are wrong about every single thing, every single
aspect of the JFK assassination. You get nothing right. Absolutely
nothing.
Sounds like the one that's wrong is you, Ralph. You can "see him
there" because you want to see him there" not because he's there. He was
in the 2nd floor lunchroom playing Mr. Cool that isn't bothered by mundane
events like the POTUS coming by.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2016-07-21 05:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, Marsh. Oswald was NOT in the Domino room at 12:30, and why should he
be? He had 45 minutes to eat lunch. Don't you think he would have been
done eating a cheese sandwich and an apple by 12:30? And regardless, why
would Oswald choose to miss seeing JFK? To hang around in the Domino Room?
Is that what you would do? If not, then why are you imparting such
behavior to Oswald?
Of course, you, Marsh, are not at all an Oswald defender. You think he
killed Tippit but not Kennedy. And so far, after decades of trying, you
haven't convinced a single person that you are right.
Oswald was in the doorway watching the motorcade, and that is what he was
doing at 12:30. We can see him there in the Altgens photo and the Wiegman
film. And we'd see him in other media if not for devious efforts to
obscure other views of him in the doorway.
Marsh, it's uncanny: you are wrong about every single thing, every single
aspect of the JFK assassination. You get nothing right. Absolutely
nothing.
Sounds like the one that's wrong is you, Ralph. You can "see him
there" because you want to see him there" not because he's there. He was
Not sure, but I think they call that pareidolia.
Like someone seeing Bigfoot on the grassy knoll. Easy mistake to make.
That wasn't Bigfoot, it was just .John McAdams testing to see if a shot
from the grassy knoll could pass over the retaining wall.
Post by mainframetech
in the 2nd floor lunchroom playing Mr. Cool that isn't bothered by mundane
events like the POTUS coming by.
Chris
Jonny Mayer
2016-07-16 04:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Oswald directly behind Lovelady
Jason Burke
2016-07-16 22:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Mayer
Oswald directly behind Lovelady
But, but. Lovelady wasn't in the doorway.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2016-07-16 22:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Mayer
Oswald directly behind Lovelady
Oswald directly ABOVE Lovelady, doing a very nasty thing.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...