Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisJohn Corbett: No one saw a shooter or rifle in Dealey
Corbett never said that.
Post by donald willisJackson, Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Couch, and Euins all said that they
noticed how wide the window was open. None of them (except Couch) said that they couldn't remember. They noticed, despite your incredulity.
I hate to confront you with facts but not one of them said they noticed
how wide open the window was. Brennan used the word "notice(d)" six times
in his testimony, none regarding how wide open the window was. Jackson,
Fischer, and Edwards used it once each, also not regarding how wide open
the window was.
Couch and Euins never used the word. None of these witnesses said they
noticed how wide open the window was. ("Don Willis' dilemma"
(alt.assassination.jfk 8/21/20)
"Not one of them said they noticed how wide open the window was."
Mr. Corbett's argument is that none of the witnesses named above used the
word "notice"... "regarding how wide open the window was". So "none of
these witnesses said they noticed how wide open the window was." Yes, they
had to use the word "notice". No synonyms allowed. Professor Corbett is
strict.
Using the Corbett Standard, Robert Jackson did not NOTICE any rifle: "I
saw the rifle.... half the weapon I guess I saw, and just as I looked at
it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building." (v2p159) Oops! He
forgot to say "noticed". Jackson only "saw" and "looked", so using the
Corbett Standard, he did not NOTICE any rifle. This will be news to anyone
who has studied the JFK assassination.
Did Jackson *notice* more than one man on the floor immediately below the
shooter? According to you, Jackson is the person who actually took the
Dillard photo, which means you can't use Jackson's testimony at all - he's
a liar, and therefore not credible. But if we use it, we use the part
where he mentions the men in the windows below.
We also use the witnesses Couch, Underwood and Dillard, who all testified
they noticed men in windows one floor below the floor indicated by Jackson
as the location of the shooter.
Do you throw out their testimony because they didn't use the word
'notice'?
No, Corbett does.
So why do you throw out their testimony? Because you most certainly do
exactly that.
Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisWitness Howard Brennan testified that "I saw this one man on the sixth
floor ". (v3p193.) His 11/22/63 affidavit would be similarly disqualified
using the Corbett Standard: "I saw a man in this window.... I then saw
this man.... I was looking at this man...."
Did Brennan notice some men one floor below the shooter? Were they at open
windows on the fifth floor, or closed windows on the fourth floor? Justify
your answer.
You of course ignored this.
Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisNor, according to the Corbett Standard, did Robert Edwards notice anyone
suspicious: "I saw a man at the window.... There was a stack of boxes
around him, I could see." No, Mr. Corbett would insist, Edwards noticed
neither man nor boxes.
Edwards explained why he said the fifth floor - he miscounted, he said
(obviously because of the facade), and the shooter was actually on the
sixth floor. That doesn't count, for you, for some reason. Edwards was
lying apparently in his testimony.
You of course ignored this as well.
Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisNor did witness Ronald Fischer notice anyone: "I watched the man... all
the time I watched him...." (v6p193)
Fischer and Edwards discussed the same man. If Edwards corrected his
statement to put the shooter on the sixth floor, this means the man
Fischer saw was on the sixth floor too.
You of course ignored this too.
Post by donald willisPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by donald willisNor did witness Amos Euins: "I saw a man in a window with a gun."
(11/22/63 affidavit)
No problem there. This doesn't put the shooter on the fifth floor.
Post by donald willisAnthony Marsh would be proud of Corbett. The latter has single-handedly
eliminated witnesses to the depository shooter in Dealey, and Marsh has
always said not to trust witnesses anyway, though Corbett may be going too
far even for him.
According to the Corbett Standard, no one in Dealey saw a suspect, let
alone a shooter or a rifle.
He didn't say that. It's a straw man argument.
Right. Let's amend that: According to the Corbett Standard, no one in
Dealey SAID that he NOTICED a suspect....
Straw man argument. Plenty of people said they saw a suspect. Some some
Is this like Trump's "lots of people" but you can't even name ONE?
YOU are a straw man.
I named some of the people below, but like Don Willis, you chose to ignore
all that to make a jab at Trump and call me names. We're on to your
nonsense, Tony.
Post by Anthony Marshjust a man (like Fischer and Edwards), some saw just a rifle or a
What about the "lots of people" who saw a pipe?
One person - Amos Euins - described it that way. He also noted on 11/22/63
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0113a.htm
== QUOTE ==
I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red
brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot
twice. He then stepped back behind some boxes. I could tell the gun was a
rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. I
just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing. This
was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few
seconds.
== UNQUOTE ==
So, which was it, a rifle or a pipe? Or was it a rifle AND a pipe?
He said he saw "a little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing" in his earliest statement above. That sounds like a rifle to me. Since a rifle was found in the building, since JFK was killed by rifle fire, since two large fragments were found in the limo that matched the rifle found in the building, since no loose pipe was found on the sixth floor, that means (to me) that a rifle was used, and Euins saw a rifle.
Each conspiracy theorist is almost guaranteed to reach a different
conclusion. What's yours? What's Don's? I guarantee they will differ.
Post by Anthony MarshCould Euins see rhe pipe near the window?
Hilarious. Euins said he saw it pointing out the window. That eliminates
either of the two pipes running down through the ceiling and into the
floor.
Silly. Jumping to conclusions again. Can you prove the pipe was the
rifle? The famous pipe rifle invent by the Mossad?
I am saying maybe euins saw a pipe and also saw the muzzle of a rifle.
Well, you're a conspiracy theorist, so of course you're going to settle on
Well, it's simply logic. If you can't agree that the rifle and the peipe
were two different objects then you have to admit that Euins was wrong or
beleve in the Mossad famous pipe rifle. (which you are not supposed to
know about).
It's simple logic, but you've established you're unable to deal with
simple logic.
It cannot be both a rifle and a pipe. A rifle was found on the sixth
floor, no loose pipe was found that could have been stuck out the window.
Neither was any Mossad rifle. So the only logical conclusion is it was the
rifle found in the building that was stuck out the window. Besides, other
witnesses described the object as a rifle, not a pipe.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)the most absurd possibility and ignore any reasonable ones? Did Euins ever
say he saw both a rifle AND a pipe. No. He described it in various
accounts as a barrel of a rifle and a pope thing. But he only saw one
object, not two.
See, so witnesses change their stories. How do you decide which version
to believe. YOU use your bias.
No, I use the hard evidence to decide. You use your belief in a
conspiracy.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshSo if Euins was right, that rules out the Carcano because it was not an
automatic rifle. And suggests a second rifle for some shot.
Except no automatic weapon was found, and Oswald's Carcano was found. And
That's my point.
No, you were ruling out the Carcano, not ruling it in. And arguing for a
No, *I* am not. I'm trying to trick YOU into thinking that.
Do you really believe the shooter was black because Euins aid it?
You don't have any tricks. You come off as desperate with your flailing
about.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)You said: "So if Euins was right, that rules out the Carcano because it was
not an automatic rifle. And suggests a second rifle for some shot."
Well, I don't think Euins was right, YOU do.
Euins said he saw a rifle barrel, and a bit of the trigger housing. That
has been cited for you already.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)three shells were found at the sniper's nest window which were determined
to have been fired from Oswald's C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world. And the two large fragments found in the limo were
determined to have been fired from Oswald's C2766 rifle to the exclusion
of all other weapons in the world. So with that evidence to consider -- It
We've been over this thousands of times and you act as if it's something
new.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)helps if we don't view the witness accounts in a vacuum -- then we can
understand what Euins got right and what Euins got wrong. And we can apply
this to the other witnesses as well.
Well, finally I got you to admit that Euins was wrong about some things.
Finally? Hardly. I've been insisting every witness gets stuff right and
stuff wrong all along. Yours is another straw man argument.
Nut you use your bias to decide what to believe.
False. Asked and answered. I use the hard evidence to determine what
witnesses are correct and which are wrong.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshWhen did you stop believing the shooter was black?
And there's the logical fallacy of a loaded question. Didn't we cover that
logical fallacy just recently? We did. Asking a loading question is
Silly, you don't know about logical errors. YOU ARE a logical error.
You avoid the point entirely, and call me names. You're desperate.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)invalid. When did you stop beating your wife? That is the famous version
I wouldn't ask you a question like that.
Hilarious! You just did: "When did you stop believing the shooter was
black?"
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)of very kind of logical fallacy you're invoking here.
It's not a logical fallacy. It's a rhetorical trick.
YOU are the logical error.
There you go. Your rhetorical trick is that you avoid citing any evidence,
utilize logical fallacies, and just play dodgeball repeatedly.
Post by Anthony MarshOf the very kind? Close, but no.
Exactly the same kind of loaded question: "When did you stop beating your
wife? That is the famous version
Post by Anthony MarshI wouldn't ask you a question like that of very kind of logical fallacy you're invoking here."
You wrote: "When did you stop believing the shooter was black?"
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshNow do you see why I say to never rely on witnesses?
Only Conspiracy Theorists rely on witnesses and find excuses to exclude
False. WC defenders rely on witnessses all the time.
You quote them as if they are God.
Untrue. That's simply not the case. I do point out when the witnesses
agree with the physical evidence, which lends credence to their
observations. I also point out when their recollections disagree with the
physical evidence, which of course has the opposite effect.
Curious, Tony avoided my response here, and goes on to pretend I'm using
my bias to decide what witnesses to believe and when.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)the hard evidence. It hurts if you look at the wrong things, and look at
them wrongly. But when we include the hard evidence within our scope, we
can understand what the witnesses got correct and what they got wrong. And
it points to a shooter on the sixth floor, contrary to Don Willis'
assertions that there was a shooter on the fifth floor. And it points to
that shooter being Oswald (it was his weapon and his prints on the trigger
guard and his prints on that box, after all).
And there's no evidence of a shooter elsewhere. Your assertions about the
dictabelt not withstanding.
YOU can't refute the acoustical evidence.
I don't need to. You haven't presented any evidence of any shots from any
acoustic evidence. Even the HSCA was split on whether the dictabelt
Of course I did. Didn't you read my rebuttal? It is a logical error to
claim that I never did anything just because you are too afraid to read
it.
The logical fallacy of begging the question once more. You make assertions
about me, instead of citing any evidence "...because you are too afraid to
read it."
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)analysis established any shots. And you're introducing the logical fallacy
of a red herring.
No. The acoustical evidence is central to this case.
For you, maybe. Not many are convinced that the dictabelt even recorded
any shots.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshYOU can't handle the TRUTH.
Yeah. I saw that movie. The guy who said that (Jack Nicholson) was wrong.
It appears you missed the entire point of the movie. But you're a
OMG, you mean they made a whole movie out of what I've been saying here?
And they didn't tell me? I think the kids now call it a meme.
We know which character you played.
And there's the logical fallacy of an ad hominem once more. How come you
spend so much time discussing me and so little discussing the evidence?
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)conspiracy theorist, and you guys are pretty infamous for missing the
forest for the broken twigs on the ground.
Hey, you are not authorized by the InterNet to change famous sayings.
You'll change the whole meaning. You can lead a horse to water, but you
can't get him drunk. When have you ever seen a drunk horse?
Your ramblings and avoidance of my points are not my problem.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshWhy not chicken out like the HSCA REpublicans did and say that yes there
WAS a shot from the grassy knoll, but it missed?
I'm pretty sure some of the HSCA Democrats concluded the same thing. The
But you can't try to pretend to be a Democrat. Name names.
My politics have nothing to do with this case. This is more diversionary
tactics from you, as you rather discuss me than the evidence.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)HCSA as a body agreed that all the shots that struck anyone were fired
from the Depository, and they concluded Oswald fired those shots. Funny
you ignore the unanimous consensus.
I dispute it. As I explained many times before, the second HSCA was
designed to be a coveryup and endorse the WC, bur acidentally found
conspiracy.
You can "explain" (you mean 'assert') it repeatedly, but until you can
provide evidence to support your claims, it is still just a meaningless
assertion.
Post by Anthony MarshBut you can't even admit that merely a shot from the front
even if it misses proves conspiracy."No contact, no foul."
What part of "HCSA as a body agreed that all the shots that struck anyone
were fired from the Depository, and they concluded Oswald fired those
shots" did you fail to understand?
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Where they disagreed was on whether there was a grassy knoll shot. Even
Not exactly. Some agrred that there was a grassy knoll shot,
No, exactly. If "some agreed that there was a grassy knoll shot" as you
say, that means "some disagreed" and that means what I wrote was correct.
Post by Anthony Marshbut think
it missed and does not prove conspiracy.
Nonsense. No one on the panel said there was a shot that missed but it
doesn't establish conspiracy. Some concluded the dictabelt testimony
established conspiracy, others were unconvinced by that testimony, and
felt the conclusion should be Oswald fired all the shots during the
assassination.
Post by Anthony MarshWhy can't YOU do that? You
know, the silly little thing called SCIENCE.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)those who believed in the dictabelt testimony concluded there was no
evidence it struck anything anywhere. Right?
When was the dictabelt sworn in and when did it testify?
You were afraid to say the testimony of EXPERTS about the dictabelt.
No, I referenced that expert testimony. Let me rephrase the above to make
my point clear even to you: Even those who believed in the dictabelt
testimony (by BBN and W&A) concluded there was no evidence it struck
anything anywhere, based on the testimony of the HSCA Medical Panel.
Right?
Hank