The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's

[donald willis]

The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story

And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
are the only one who seems obsessed with that." ("Warren Report concurs:
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)

The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)

I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.

But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.

Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.

Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)

However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.

The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.

The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Pointing out your obsession with how wide open the window was is not
waving the white flag. It is simply pointing out your silliness.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Pointing out your obsession with how wide open the window was is not
waving the white flag. It is simply pointing out your silliness.

No wonder LNs can stand firm and in lock-step: They simply refuse to look
at evidence which undermines their beliefs. If you looked at the photo
which Jackson was looking at, you'd see that your cherished Jackson word
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.

But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Pointing out your obsession with how wide open the window was is not
waving the white flag. It is simply pointing out your silliness.

No wonder LNs can stand firm and in lock-step: They simply refuse to look
at evidence which undermines their beliefs. If you looked at the photo
which Jackson was looking at, you'd see that your cherished Jackson word
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is. We have witnesses who
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open. We have a plethora
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.

You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point and therefore must discard the placement by those
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Pointing out your obsession with how wide open the window was is not
waving the white flag. It is simply pointing out your silliness.

No wonder LNs can stand firm and in lock-step: They simply refuse to look
at evidence which undermines their beliefs. If you looked at the photo
which Jackson was looking at, you'd see that your cherished Jackson word
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.

We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.

Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors! If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"! Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway". And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes, and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes? Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did. Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor. But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window. None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Pointing out your obsession with how wide open the window was is not
waving the white flag. It is simply pointing out your silliness.

No wonder LNs can stand firm and in lock-step: They simply refuse to look
at evidence which undermines their beliefs. If you looked at the photo
which Jackson was looking at, you'd see that your cherished Jackson word
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway open is just one tiny
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window. Both of those things
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

On Monday, July 27, 2020 a CUT
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway

You just can't accept that that word "halfway" has been discredited, can
you? I've never seen such a powerful case of Denial. If that "entire
body of evidence" is on the level with "Jackson's description of the
shooter's window as being halfway", you're in deep deep trouble....

open is just one tiny

Post by John Corbett
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

"A" window was wide open, and most witnesses were looking at that window,
not the "nest" window, just after 12:30.

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window.

I have done no such citing. It was NOT "the sixth floor".

Both of those things

Post by John Corbett
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Corbett--Mr. In Denial!

Post by John Corbett
Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

You know that I haven't ignored it. I've discredited it. And I've yet to
see a version of that photo which shows all three witnesses, though Mr.
Marsh says there is one....

Post by John Corbett
That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

You haven't even regarded Jackson's designation of how wide the window was
open. You just keep bringing up that misleading word "halfway". You are
now in charge of LN Deniers....

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

On Monday, July 27, 2020 a CUT
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway

You just can't accept that that word "halfway" has been discredited, can
you? I've never seen such a powerful case of Denial. If that "entire
body of evidence" is on the level with "Jackson's description of the
shooter's window as being halfway", you're in deep deep trouble....
open is just one tiny

Just because you dispute something doesn't discredit it.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

"A" window was wide open, and most witnesses were looking at that window,
not the "nest" window, just after 12:30.

Did you have a point?

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window.

I have done no such citing. It was NOT "the sixth floor".

The witnesses you cited said it was the sixth floor. You want to cherry
pick just the part that fits with your silly theory.

Post by donald willis
Both of those things

Post by John Corbett
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

You ignore this point because you ahve no answer.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Corbett--Mr. In Denial!

I don't deny you are on a snipe hunt.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

You know that I haven't ignored it. I've discredited it. And I've yet to
see a version of that photo which shows all three witnesses, though Mr.
Marsh says there is one....

Once again, your dispute does not discredit that photo.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

You haven't even regarded Jackson's designation of how wide the window was
open. You just keep bringing up that misleading word "halfway". You are
now in charge of LN Deniers....

You don't regard the wealth of evidence that tells us the shooter was on
the sixth floor. You only want to consider a few people who said the
window was wide open and disregard everything else. "Wide open" is a vague
term. It doesn't mean all the way open. On the other hand Brennan's
placement of the shooter as one floor below the top floor is very specific
and unambiguous. It is also supported by the forensic evidence that was
found at the very window he specified. But you want to disredgard all that
because he described the window as "wide open".

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened. A long time ago, an LN wrote
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

I'm not positive but it might have been Jean Davison who wrote that on the
old Prodigy board back in the early 1990s. I'm fairly certain it was a
woman and Jean was one of a handful of female regulars on that board. Of
course she didn't use the term conspiracy hobbyist back then. Our term of
endearment for CTs back then was Loons. We were the Nutters.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

I'm not positive but it might have been Jean Davison who wrote that on the
old Prodigy board back in the early 1990s. I'm fairly certain it was a
woman and Jean was one of a handful of female regulars on that board. Of
course she didn't use the term conspiracy hobbyist back then. Our term of
endearment for CTs back then was Loons. We were the Nutters.

You still don't get it. We conspiracy believers grew up loving JFK. So
our hero was murdered and we want to know who did it and we still care
about thr truth.

YOU WC defenders only read about it later and you hate all liberals so
you were happy to see JFK killed. You don't care about the truth and
you don't want to know anything.

[BOZ]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

I'm not positive but it might have been Jean Davison who wrote that on the
old Prodigy board back in the early 1990s. I'm fairly certain it was a
woman and Jean was one of a handful of female regulars on that board. Of
course she didn't use the term conspiracy hobbyist back then. Our term of
endearment for CTs back then was Loons. We were the Nutters.

You still don't get it. We conspiracy believers grew up loving JFK. So
our hero was murdered and we want to know who did it and we still care
about thr truth.
YOU WC defenders only read about it later and you hate all liberals so
you were happy to see JFK killed. You don't care about the truth and
you don't want to know anything.

Liberals support free markets, limited government, individual rights, and
capitalism. You espouse hate speech laws,socialism and Joe Biden.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

I'm not positive but it might have been Jean Davison who wrote that on the
old Prodigy board back in the early 1990s. I'm fairly certain it was a
woman and Jean was one of a handful of female regulars on that board. Of
course she didn't use the term conspiracy hobbyist back then. Our term of
endearment for CTs back then was Loons. We were the Nutters.

You still don't get it. We conspiracy believers grew up loving JFK. So
our hero was murdered and we want to know who did it and we still care
about thr truth.
YOU WC defenders only read about it later and you hate all liberals so
you were happy to see JFK killed. You don't care about the truth and
you don't want to know anything.

Wrongo. As always, your generalizations miss the mark.

I lived through the assassination and recall shouting at the TV "Fair Play
for Cuba Committee" before Jack Ruby did at Oswald's "press conference" on
the night of the assassination.

I dropped out of high school after Bobby Kennedy got shot and killed and
was a hippie left-wing protester in the 1970s. I voted for Mark Lane and
Dick Gregory for President / VP in 1972 (or was that 1976? - it's been a
long time).

I became an 'Oswald did it' convert when I purchased a set of the 26 WC
volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes in 1981 or so. I would stay up late
reading and go into work dog-tired from getting two or three hours sleep.
I read through those 38 volumes at least twice. The evidence in those
volumes revealed to me the critics didn't have a case and they were being
very dishonest with their selections from the evidence. I found out that
the critics didn't care about the truth, they cared more about making
money. And that those that accepted the arguments of the critics without
examining the evidence were getting led down the primrose path because the
critics weren't being faithful to the totality of the evidence. Then I
discovered Prodigy and started posting there.

Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hank

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett
something that was brilliant in its simplicity. She wrote that conspiracy
hobbyists don't want to know the truth. They want their theories to be
true. You are a perfect example.

I'm not positive but it might have been Jean Davison who wrote that on the
old Prodigy board back in the early 1990s. I'm fairly certain it was a
woman and Jean was one of a handful of female regulars on that board. Of
course she didn't use the term conspiracy hobbyist back then. Our term of
endearment for CTs back then was Loons. We were the Nutters.

You still don't get it. We conspiracy believers grew up loving JFK. So
our hero was murdered and we want to know who did it and we still care
about thr truth.
YOU WC defenders only read about it later and you hate all liberals so
you were happy to see JFK killed. You don't care about the truth and
you don't want to know anything.

Wrongo. As always, your generalizations miss the mark.
I lived through the assassination and recall shouting at the TV "Fair Play
for Cuba Committee" before Jack Ruby did at Oswald's "press conference" on
the night of the assassination.
I dropped out of high school after Bobby Kennedy got shot and killed and
was a hippie left-wing protester in the 1970s. I voted for Mark Lane and
Dick Gregory for President / VP in 1972 (or was that 1976? - it's been a
long time).
I became an 'Oswald did it' convert when I purchased a set of the 26 WC
volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes in 1981 or so. I would stay up late
reading and go into work dog-tired from getting two or three hours sleep.
I read through those 38 volumes at least twice. The evidence in those
volumes revealed to me the critics didn't have a case and they were being
very dishonest with their selections from the evidence. I found out that
the critics didn't care about the truth, they cared more about making
money. And that those that accepted the arguments of the critics without
examining the evidence were getting led down the primrose path because the
critics weren't being faithful to the totality of the evidence. Then I
discovered Prodigy and started posting there.
Quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't go the hippie but I was a left wing protester. In the spring of
1970, there was a student revolt at Ohio State about a week before Nixon
invaded Cambodia triggering campus unrest across that country that
culminated in the Kent State massacre. Ohio State shut down for a week in
a cooling off period and there was a full National Guard presence when it
reopened. It was a scary time. I dropped out of Ohio State that same
quarter. I cast my first vote for President for George McGovern in 1972.
By 1980 I had become disillusioned with the Democrats and voted for the
Libertarian candidate whose name I don't even remember. By 1984 I had
become a Reagan Democrat and by 1988 had become a Republican. By 1996 I
had become disillusioned with them as well and joined the Libertarian
Party although my participation has been limited to voting for the
candidates. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 but will vote straight
Republican in 2020. There is just too much at stake to allow the Democrats
to take over the White House and both houses of Congress. They will
eliminate the filibuster and be able to implement their radical socialist
agenda without effective opposition if that happens.

I had read the Warren Report shortly after it came out and was satisfied
Oswald was the lone shooter but began having doubts when the HSCA reached
its conclusions and became a full fledged CT when Jack Anderson did a TV
documentary laying out his case that JFK had been the victim of a Mafia
plot. This video is courtesy of our own Bob Harris:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jack+anderon+documentary+jfk+assassination&docid=608048196681140637&mid=5E8EC28F8D44013BAB3A5E8EC28F8D44013BAB3A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

I remained a CT for several years until it was pointed out that Oswald got
his job at the TSBD about six weeks before the assassination. Whether one
believes Oswald was a willing participant in the assassination or just a
patsy, how would the conspirators have known to place him in that building
that far ahead of time? Tod this day I have yet to see a satisfactory
answer to that dileema. It was then I realized that the assassination was
almost certainly a crime of opportunity carried out by one man. I began
looking more critically at the arguments made by the CT crowd and realized
none of them held any water.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

On Monday, July 27, 2020 a CUT
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway

You just can't accept that that word "halfway" has been discredited, can
you? I've never seen such a powerful case of Denial. If that "entire
body of evidence" is on the level with "Jackson's description of the
shooter's window as being halfway", you're in deep deep trouble....
open is just one tiny

Just because you dispute something doesn't discredit it.

The photo itself discredits "halfway".

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

"A" window was wide open, and most witnesses were looking at that window,
not the "nest" window, just after 12:30.

Did you have a point?

Yes, these witnesses were talking about a DIFFERENT window.

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window.

I have done no such citing. It was NOT "the sixth floor".

The witnesses you cited said it was the sixth floor. You want to cherry
pick just the part that fits with your silly theory.

We're even, then. You want to cherry pick floor designations and ignore
state-of-window designations.

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Both of those things

Post by John Corbett
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

You ignore this point because you ahve no answer.

I ignore it because I answered it before. Either to you or to Hank.

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Corbett--Mr. In Denial!

I don't deny you are on a snipe hunt.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

You know that I haven't ignored it. I've discredited it. And I've yet to
see a version of that photo which shows all three witnesses, though Mr.
Marsh says there is one....

Once again, your dispute does not discredit that photo.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

You haven't even regarded Jackson's designation of how wide the window was
open. You just keep bringing up that misleading word "halfway". You are
now in charge of LN Deniers....

You don't regard the wealth of evidence that tells us the shooter was on
the sixth floor. You only want to consider a few people who said the
window was wide open and disregard everything else. "Wide open" is a vague
term. It doesn't mean all the way open. On the other hand Brennan's
placement of the shooter as one floor below the top floor is very specific
and unambiguous.

Good of you to invoke Brennan. He was also very specific re how wide the
window was open--just like the 5th-floor windows below the "nest".



It is also supported by the forensic evidence that was

Post by John Corbett
found

We don't know where the shells were found. We know where Fritz PLACED
them, though.

at the very window he specified. But you want to disredgard all that

Post by John Corbett
because he described the window as "wide open".

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me. Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly
and pretend that trumps everything else the evidence is telling us. I look
at the whole and don't put on blinders to everything but the one piece of
evidence that supports what I would rather believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me. Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

No, you only look at what reenforces you bias.

Post by John Corbett
and pretend that trumps everything else the evidence is telling us. I look
at the whole and don't put on blinders to everything but the one piece of
evidence that supports what I would rather believe.

There is a lot of evidedence that you have never seen.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

dcw

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that. We is in dispute is the significance of that.
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor, the same location other
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy outweights all the rock solid evidence
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.


We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".


, the same location other

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....


outweights all the rock solid evidence

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.

Now you are just being whiny. You don't get to dictate what the terms of
the conversation. You don't get to dictate what words other people use.

We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

This is where you demonstrate what Bud has often said, that conspiracy
hobbyists are very bad at weighing evidence. The consensus of the
witnesses is that the shooter was on the sixth floor. There is also a
consensus the window was wide open. Those two things are incompatible.
Both cannot be true. If the only evidence was the eyewitness accounts,
those two things would carry equal weight but that is not the case. We
also have forensic and photographic evidence that supports the shooter
being on the sixth floor and refutes that the window he fired from was
wide open. In order to argue for your wide open window, you must throw out
everything else and invent ridiculous excuses for doing so.

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Again you demonstrate how poor you are at weighing evidence. Anomalies
such as these do not make rock solid evidence vanish. The anomalies are
all the result of human error which occurs in just about every human
endeavor. Fortunately we have far better forms of evidence than human
observations which are notoriously the least reliable form of evidence we
have, not just in this case but in all cases. You choose to gravitate to
the anomalies and dismiss the forensic evidence.

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.

Do I have to go through that nonsense again?

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.

Now you are just being whiny. You don't get to dictate what the terms of
the conversation. You don't get to dictate what words other people use.

I'm fine with the word that Jackson used--"halfway"--but the photo is more
important because it shows a fully open window. But Corbett STILL can't
quite admit that. It's like it's radioactive for him, or Kryptonitey, but
he ain't Superman. He's Denialman....

And that undeniable denial shows just how important Jackson's
testimony--and the accompanying photo--are on this point. It's deadly for
LNs....

dcw
CUT

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.

Now you are just being whiny. You don't get to dictate what the terms of
the conversation. You don't get to dictate what words other people use.

I'm fine with the word that Jackson used--"halfway"--but the photo is more
important because it shows a fully open window. But Corbett STILL can't
quite admit that. It's like it's radioactive for him, or Kryptonitey, but
he ain't Superman. He's Denialman....
And that undeniable denial shows just how important Jackson's
testimony--and the accompanying photo--are on this point. It's deadly for
LNs....
dcw
CUT

Nope. For the reasons given already, your argument is unconvincing.

Let's reiterate some of the reasons:
o The hard evidence was found on the sixth floor, not the fifth.
- Three shells
- one rifle
- one paper bag bearing Oswald's print large enough to contain the rifle.
(You allege, but do not establish, all this was found on the fifth floor).
o The witnesses, when their testimony is understood, puts the shooter on
the sixth floor.
- Edwards testified he miscounted the floors, he said the fifth, but didn't
count the ground floor. That puts the shooter in the sixth floor.
- Fischer saw the same man Edwards did. Fischer described boxes visible in
the window. There are boxes visible in the sixth floor SE corner window.
Not in the fifth floor SE corner window.
- Brennan said one floor down from the seventh.
- Jackson put the shooter one floor above the men on the fifth floor.
- Jackson said he saw boxes in the shooter's window.
- Dillard said Jackson said "second from the top" for the shooter. Dillard
said he saw men one floor below the floor identified by Jackson.
- Underwood said Jackson pointed out the window where he saw the shooter.
Underwood said he saw nothing in that window, but one floor below, he saw
two men.
(You allege, but do not establish, all these people saw a shooter on the
fifth floor).

The photographs put the men on the fifth floor. The photographs show boxes
visible in the sixth floor SE corner window. No boxes are visible in the
photographs in the fifth floor SE corner window. The shooter must
therefore have been on the sixth from the evidence of the photographs
along with the testimony of all the witnesses.

Your arguments are disproven by the hard physical evidence recovered on the
sixth floor as well as the testimony of the witnesses.

You fail to acknowledge or concede that because the first floor was
covered with a facade, it is understandable that witnesses could
undercount the floors and arrive at 'five' when they should have arrived
at 'six'. You assume -- unjustly and without evidence -- that those
witnesses who said the shooter was on the fifth floor in their earliest
statements somehow just *knew* the first floor windows were covered with a
facade and started counting from the first floor (where the windows were
NOT visible) instead of the second floor, which was the lowest floor where
windows were visible to the spectators.

For all these reasons, and more, I dismiss your arguments as addled
nonsense.

Hank

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:34:47 PM UTC-4, donald willis CUT.

We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

This is where you demonstrate what Bud has often said, that conspiracy
hobbyists are very bad at weighing evidence. The consensus of the
witnesses is that the shooter was on the sixth floor. There is also a
consensus the window was wide open. Those two things are incompatible.

You'll agree that it was easy for witnesses outside the depository to
confuse floor numbers. Some witnesses (e.g., Couch, Fischer) waffled
between 5th, 6th, and 7th. Underwood reported that Euins had said,
perhaps, 4th; a sheriff's summary of those who made statements at the
sheriff's notes that Euins said 5th; later, he said 6th. Worrell, at
first, couldn't say if it was 5th or 6th. Edwards originally said 5th;
later he said 6th. So I'd say there was no clear consensus from witnesses
here....

Post by John Corbett
Both cannot be true. If the only evidence was the eyewitness accounts,
those two things would carry equal weight but that is not the case. We
also have forensic and photographic evidence that supports the shooter
being on the sixth floor

The forensic evidence is fine, but it & of itself it doesn't tell us where
it was found. Some witness evidence puts both shells & rifle on the 5th
floor; other witness evidence puts it on the 6th.

and refutes that the window he fired from was

Post by John Corbett
wide open. In order to argue for your wide open window, you must throw out
everything else and invent ridiculous excuses for doing so.

Post by John Corbett

witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Again you demonstrate how poor you are at weighing evidence. Anomalies
such as these do not make rock solid evidence vanish. The anomalies are
all the result of human error which occurs in just about every human
endeavor. Fortunately we have far better forms of evidence than human
observations which are notoriously the least reliable form of evidence we
have, not just in this case but in all cases. You choose to gravitate to
the anomalies and dismiss the forensic evidence.

Enough *consistent* anomalies and you've got... rock solid evidence.

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.
We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.
dcw

Jeez, for a second I thought you said Corbetr went BYE BYE and I was
cheering.

[donald willis]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.
We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.
dcw

Jeez, for a second I thought you said Corbetr went BYE BYE and I was
cheering.

Not sure why you thought that. And we need LNs to help us hone our
arguments.

[John Corbett]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.
We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.

Jeez, for a second I thought you said Corbetr went BYE BYE and I was
cheering.

Not sure why you thought that. And we need LNs to help us hone our
arguments.

You are not honing your arguments. You are polishing turds.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....

Nobody is disputing that.

Getting closer. This is like pulling teeth. "Disputing WHAT?" Maybe you
can say, explicitly, how wide the westernmost 6th-floor window is open.
"That" doesn't quite cut it.
We is in dispute is the significance of that.

Post by John Corbett
Does Jackson's recollection of the shooter's window being open as far as
the one he was shown in the photo three months later outweigh his
placement of the shooter on the sixth floor

I'd say it weighs at least about the same, since 3 other witnesses arrived
at the same conclusion. And Fischer and Edwards said "wide open" (or the
equivalent) on 11/22/63, not just 3 months later. And Brennan too ignored
the "nest" window when estimating the state of the window and went to the
wide-open windows below the "nest".
, the same location other

Post by John Corbett
witnesses placed the shooter at, and where all the forensic evidence was
found. He expect everyone else to folloy you down that same silly rabbit
hole in which that one discrepancy

Must I reiterate all the other "discrepancies"? Fritz picking up the
shells. Sawyer radioing "third floor", then Henslee translating that as
"fifth floor"? The detectives stationed near the "nest" not
mentioning--in their original reports--the discovery of the rifle (it was
noisy, the discovery that is) circa 1:20. Patrolman Valentine writing
that he was stationed on the "fifth floor" after he & Sawyer went
upstairs. Several "discrepancies"....
outweights all the rock solid evidence

Post by John Corbett
the shooter was on the 6th floor. It is totally asinine to think that one
observation erases all the other evidence that clearly tells us the
shooter was on the 6th floor. The forensic evidence tells us that. The
photographic evidence tells us that. The eyewitnesses tell us that. But
the only thing that matters to you is how wide open the window was. It
doesn't get any sillier than that.

Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.

It's all you do focus on. You have developed tunnel vision over that one
issue which blinds you to everything else. It is comical that you think
the only piece of evidence that matters revolves around how wide open the
shooter's window was.

See above.

Jeez, for a second I thought you said Corbetr went BYE BYE and I was
cheering.

Not sure why you thought that. And we need LNs to help us hone our
arguments.

You are not honing your arguments. You are polishing turds.

Backed into a corner re the westernmost window on the 6th floor, Corbett
resorts to vulgarisms....

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....
dcw
Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.
dcw

How dare you focus on the Truth!

The cover-up is a lot more fun.
You can say any shit you want and get away with it.

[BOZ]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

Photos do not dismay me.

Oh, but they apparently do! JC is consistent--he still can't say what he
sees in the photo that Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway
open". Hint: that window is open about twice as far as the so-called
"sniper's nest" window. Apparently, Corbett's eyes aren't finely tuned
enough to see the difference....
dcw
Nor does your silly analysis of them dismay me

Post by John Corbett
because I just laugh that off. I know what happened because I look at all
the evidence to tell me what happened. I don't focus on a single anomaly

To acknowledge an anomaly is not to "focus" on it.
dcw

How dare you focus on the Truth!
The cover-up is a lot more fun.
You can say any shit you want and get away with it.

This is HATE SPEECH. Vote Trump 2020.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

On Monday, July 27, 2020 a CUT
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway

You just can't accept that that word "halfway" has been discredited, can
you? I've never seen such a powerful case of Denial. If that "entire
body of evidence" is on the level with "Jackson's description of the
shooter's window as being halfway", you're in deep deep trouble....
open is just one tiny

Just because you dispute something doesn't discredit it.

The photo itself discredits "halfway".

No, you yourself admitted above it depends on the witnesses knowledge of
casement windows:
== QUOTE ==
That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway".
== UNQUOTE ==

'Halfway' and 'all the way' are ambiguous, according to your own words.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

"A" window was wide open, and most witnesses were looking at that window,
not the "nest" window, just after 12:30.

Did you have a point?

Yes, these witnesses were talking about a DIFFERENT window.

In your inventive interpretation. Their complete testimony, read without
trying to force a conclusion, makes it clear that they are talking about
the sixth floor southeast corner window.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window.

I have done no such citing. It was NOT "the sixth floor".

The witnesses you cited said it was the sixth floor. You want to cherry
pick just the part that fits with your silly theory.

We're even, then. You want to cherry pick floor designations and ignore
state-of-window designations.

No, the state of the evidence - all of it, not just the parts you select
about the supposed state of the windows - indicates beyond any doubt the
shooter was in the sixth floor window.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Both of those things

Post by John Corbett
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

You ignore this point because you ahve no answer.

I ignore it because I answered it before. Either to you or to Hank.

Again, your inventive interpretations of the evidence carry no weight here
with us. You need to do more than simply re-interpret some of the evidence
to your liking while ignoring the rest.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Corbett--Mr. In Denial!

I don't deny you are on a snipe hunt.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

You know that I haven't ignored it. I've discredited it. And I've yet to
see a version of that photo which shows all three witnesses, though Mr.
Marsh says there is one....

Once again, your dispute does not discredit that photo.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

You haven't even regarded Jackson's designation of how wide the window was
open. You just keep bringing up that misleading word "halfway". You are
now in charge of LN Deniers....

You don't regard the wealth of evidence that tells us the shooter was on
the sixth floor. You only want to consider a few people who said the
window was wide open and disregard everything else. "Wide open" is a vague
term. It doesn't mean all the way open. On the other hand Brennan's
placement of the shooter as one floor below the top floor is very specific
and unambiguous.

Good of you to invoke Brennan. He was also very specific re how wide the
window was open--just like the 5th-floor windows below the "nest".

Sigh. You intend to simply keep repeating your inventive interpretations
as if they are facts. They are not. Brennan told the Warren Commission
where he remembered the shooter was. He said one window below the top
floor - which makes it the sixth floor. That window was also indicated by
Jackson in another way - he put the shooter one floor above the men on the
fifth floor. Underwood testified he saw those men looking up as if to see
the shooter. Dillard said Jackson said the shooter was one floor from the
top on the right hand side immediately after the final shot. Edwards
miscounted the floors initially, but put the man he saw on the sixth floor
when he revisited the scene with the FBI, explaining he didn't count the
bottom floor.

Post by donald willis
It is also supported by the forensic evidence that was

Post by John Corbett
found

We don't know where the shells were found. We know where Fritz PLACED
them, though.

You're again incorrectly stating your inventive interpretations as facts.
They are not facts. They are not even close to being established as true,
no matter how many times you state them as facts.

Post by donald willis
at the very window he specified. But you want to disredgard all that

Post by John Corbett
because he described the window as "wide open".

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.

You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate? You
never do establish it is, you simply assume what you need to prove.

Assuming what you need to prove is never the best way to solve a problem.

Or a crime.

Hank

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

On Monday, July 27, 2020 a CUT
"halfway" was WRONG. It's your phobia re that photo which equates to
waving the white flag.... Embracing his word "halfway" is kind of a
reverse-phobia, a kind of demented adherence.
But your LN blinders only confirm that I'm on the right track. Thank you,
John! Keep up my good work....

No, we don't refuse to look at evidence. What we do is sensibly weigh
evidence for probative value. Not all evidence points to the truth,
particularly when we speak of eyewitness testimony which is well known to
be the least reliable form of evidence there is.

And yet you're adhering to Jackson's testimony re a window open "halfway"
and not looking at the photographic evidence dispelling that notion!

No, I'm going with the entire body of evidence of which Jackson's
description of the shooter's window as being halfway

You just can't accept that that word "halfway" has been discredited, can
you? I've never seen such a powerful case of Denial. If that "entire
body of evidence" is on the level with "Jackson's description of the
shooter's window as being halfway", you're in deep deep trouble....
open is just one tiny

Just because you dispute something doesn't discredit it.

The photo itself discredits "halfway".

No, you yourself admitted above it depends on the witnesses knowledge of
casement windows

Ihe photo discredits the use of "halfway" in relation to itself. If that

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
== QUOTE ==
That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway".
== UNQUOTE ==
'Halfway' and 'all the way' are ambiguous, according to your own words.

You and Corbett should just look at the damn picture. Nothing ambiguous
re the westernmost window in the photo. That window is looking more &
more like it's the key to the whole shebang. And it may be--Jackson is
the most important "wide open window" witness. Here he practically
undermines the whole "sniper's nest" industry, and you don't like it.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
piece. The only pieces that don't fit are the ones in which witnesses said
the window was wide open. That is provably wrong.

"A" window was wide open, and most witnesses were looking at that window,
not the "nest" window, just after 12:30.

Did you have a point?

Yes, these witnesses were talking about a DIFFERENT window.

In your inventive interpretation. Their complete testimony, read without
trying to force a conclusion, makes it clear that they are talking about
the sixth floor southeast corner window.

Then why did Jackson resort to drawing attention to a different window in
that photo, when he could have used the "nest" window?

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
We have witnesses who

Post by John Corbett
said they saw a gunman in the eastern most window of the TSBD. SOME of
those witnesses said the window was wide open. We have photographic
evidence that shows that window was only halfway open.

Clearly, those four or five witnesses were talking about a different
window, not the "nest" window. They were not wrong. Your "photographic
evidence" re the 6th floor is beside the point. Brennan even used the
5th-floor windows to illustrate that the window was wide open. He didn't
realize that the man actually shot from one of those windows.
We have a plethora

Post by John Corbett
of forensic evidence that the shots were fired from the 6th floor. All of
those things cannot be true. Judgements have to be made as to which pieces
of evidence are probative and which should be discarded. Those of us who
believe shots were fired from the 6th floor, which includes everyone on
the planet except you, accept the validity of the photographic evidence,
the eyewitnesses who placed the shooter on the 6th floor, and all the
forensic evidence that indicates the shooter was on the 6th floor. This
only requires us to believe that the witnesses who thought the window was
wide open were wrong on that point.
You on the other hand can't conceive that those witnesses were wrong on
that one minor point

"Minor"? You're treating it as major by refusing even to concede that the
window which Jackson indicated as showing how wide the window was open was
indeed wide open.

It is a minor point when compared with where these same witnesses placed
the shooter. You have cited a number of witnesses who said the shooter was
on the sixth floor firing from a wide open window.

I have done no such citing. It was NOT "the sixth floor".

The witnesses you cited said it was the sixth floor. You want to cherry
pick just the part that fits with your silly theory.

We're even, then. You want to cherry pick floor designations and ignore
state-of-window designations.

No, the state of the evidence - all of it, not just the parts you select
about the supposed state of the windows - indicates beyond any doubt the
shooter was in the sixth floor window.

In order to say that, you have to reject four witnesses' accounts of a
"wide open" window. OK. Actually, you'd first have to acknowledge that
Jackson indicated a wide open window before you could reject him on this
point. Neither of you have done that....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
Both of those things

Post by John Corbett
cannot be true because the sixth floor window was only halfway open. We
logically must conclude that these witnesses got one or the other wrong.
You keep insisting they got the location wrong. Of those two details,
which do you think a witness would most likely get correct, the location
or how wide open the window was? Which would seem more important a the
time? Those questions alone should point you to the correct answer but if
that's not enough, the rest of the evidence should clue you in. For some
reason, it hasn't seemed to have done so.

You ignore this point because you ahve no answer.

I ignore it because I answered it before. Either to you or to Hank.

Again, your inventive interpretations of the evidence carry no weight here
with us. You need to do more than simply re-interpret some of the evidence
to your liking while ignoring the rest.

I'm not interpreting anything re what the four witnesses said re the state
of the window.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
and therefore must discard the placement by those

Post by John Corbett
same witnesses of where the shooter was, the photographic evidence that
shows the 3 employees occupying the 5th floor, and all the forensic
evidence that was found on the sixth floor. To do that you must invent a
laundry list of excuses for dismissing all that evidence, simply because
some of the witnesses thought the window was wide open. Then in the
ironies of al ironies, you disparage LNs by saying, "They simply refuse to
look at evidence which undermines their beliefs.". Just what the hell do
you think you are doing when you ignore all that other evidence that tells
us emphatically that the shooter was on the 6th floor.

Your phobia apparently is not treatable. You're still going with
Jackson's word "halfway", as if it were squarely in your evidence corral.
You're still ignoring the photo he was talking about, which shows the
westernmost 6th-floor window open as far as it could be. The "nest"
window was NOT open as far as it could be.
Keep ignoring the photo and thereby encouraging me in my endeavors!

Don't blame me for you silly snipe hunt.

Corbett--Mr. In Denial!

I don't deny you are on a snipe hunt.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again in an ironic twist you accuse me of doing what you yourself
have done. You want to ignore the Dillard photo which clearly shows the 3
TSBD employees watching the motorcade from the fifth floor.

You know that I haven't ignored it. I've discredited it. And I've yet to
see a version of that photo which shows all three witnesses, though Mr.
Marsh says there is one....

Once again, your dispute does not discredit that photo.

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
That one photograph trumps the recollections of any and all witnesses who
thought the window was wide open. That is the sort of detail witnesses get
wrong but photographs get right. The photograph and film of the TSBD
dovetails with the rest of the body of evidence. The recollections of
witnesses who thought the window was wide open does not fit and should be
disregarded by sensible people.

You haven't even regarded Jackson's designation of how wide the window was
open. You just keep bringing up that misleading word "halfway". You are
now in charge of LN Deniers....

You don't regard the wealth of evidence that tells us the shooter was on
the sixth floor. You only want to consider a few people who said the
window was wide open and disregard everything else. "Wide open" is a vague
term. It doesn't mean all the way open. On the other hand Brennan's
placement of the shooter as one floor below the top floor is very specific
and unambiguous.

Good of you to invoke Brennan. He was also very specific re how wide the
window was open--just like the 5th-floor windows below the "nest".

Sigh. You intend to simply keep repeating your inventive interpretations
as if they are facts.

Sigh. It is not an "interpretation" to say that Brennan and Jackson
indicated that the window was wide open.

They are not. Brennan told the Warren Commission

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
where he remembered the shooter was. He said one window below the top
floor - which makes it the sixth floor. That window was also indicated by
Jackson in another way - he put the shooter one floor above the men on the
fifth floor. Underwood testified he saw those men looking up as if to see
the shooter.

As I noted elsewhere, "those men" denied that they were looking up.

Dillard said Jackson said the shooter was one floor from the

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
top on the right hand side immediately after the final shot. Edwards
miscounted the floors initially, but put the man he saw on the sixth floor
when he revisited the scene with the FBI, explaining he didn't count the
bottom floor.

He also initially, and ultimately, said that the window was wide open.
His first take really seems to be on the money: The window was wide open
and on the 5th floor. It was and it was.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
It is also supported by the forensic evidence that was

Post by John Corbett
found

We don't know where the shells were found. We know where Fritz PLACED
them, though.

You're again incorrectly stating your inventive interpretations as facts.
They are not facts. They are not even close to being established as true,
no matter how many times you state them as facts.

Deputy Mooney said that Fritz picked up the shells. Therefore, they had
to have been photographed later in at least a different spot, if not a
different floor.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
at the very window he specified. But you want to disredgard all that

Post by John Corbett
because he described the window as "wide open".

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis
If
enough people see that you're obviously wrong about that westernmost
window, they may come to see that you're wrong about other pieces of
evidence, too....

You've been peddling this nonsense for years and have yet to make a single
convert. Why do you bother?

Maybe because I'm more interested in what actually happened than in
conversions....

You have no interest in what happened.

You can't even look at a photo because it might I don't know dismay you.

We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was. We know that because he and
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.

Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment. The window on the 6th floor was open just
enough to give a shooter a clear line of sight to the limo as it traveled
down Elm St. Somebody who only wanted to watch the motorcade from that
window would have opened it all the way.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.

We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know. But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN. I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!
That's if anything ANTI-concealment. The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.
We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know. But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN. I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!
That's if anything ANTI-concealment. The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Is that really the best you could do?

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.
We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know. But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN. I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!
That's if anything ANTI-concealment. The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Is that really the best you could do?

Beats your best all to hell. Your best can't even explain Brennan's
observation here. Yes, the suspect was hiding on the window sill! Sure.
He was obviously trying to be seen.

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.
We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know. But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN. I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!
That's if anything ANTI-concealment. The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Is that really the best you could do?

Beats your best all to hell. Your best can't even explain Brennan's
observation here. Yes, the suspect was hiding on the window sill! Sure.
He was obviously trying to be seen.

Hey, I thought he was sleeping!

Post by donald willis
dcw

[donald willis]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.
We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know. But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN. I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!
That's if anything ANTI-concealment. The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Is that really the best you could do?

Beats your best all to hell. Your best can't even explain Brennan's
observation here. Yes, the suspect was hiding on the window sill! Sure.
He was obviously trying to be seen.

Hey, I thought he was sleeping!

No, he just needs frequent rests, like Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby".

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by donald willis
dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

I already said everyone knows that the westernmost window was open halfway.

You admitted, I thought, that the word 'halfway' is ambiguous.

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.

You sure about that?

Here's Fischer's statement:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer1.htm
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Ronald B. Fischer Address 4007 Flamingo Drive, Mesquite, Texas Age 24 , Phone No. ER 9-0950 (Employed by the Dallas County Auditor's Office.)

Deposes and says:

Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].

I turned away and by that time the motorcade rounded the corner. And then I heard what I thought was [sic] three shots, and the motorcade was about where that Stemmons Freeway sign is there.

I do remember one peculair [sic] thing happened just at the time I saw the man up there. There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and she looked to me like she might be an employee in that building. She was walking in while everyone else had been coming out.

/s/ Ronald B. Fischer

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ James J. Muleady

Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== QUOTE ==

I see Fischer say "all I could see was his head" and "he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position".

That implies a man with his head low to the sill and the window nearly closed - I don't see how you get from Fischer's language above to the conclusion the window was fully open.

I also want to point out that what's pertinent and memorable to one person might not be pertinent and memorable to another. Fischer did notice a young woman going into the building and made certain to mention that, fully understandable as Fischer was just 24. The state of the window? Not so much. He didn't mention it, and from what language you infer it was fully open fully escapes me.

We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know.

Duh. Obviously it the sixth floor assassin's idea to only open the window
as much as necessary.

I see you use the "halfway open" language here to describe the SE corner
window of the sixth floor. Elsewhere you use that language to describe the
window on the the SW corner of the sixth floor. As I noted, the term is
ambiguous.

But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN.

No, he wasn't.

I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!

And Fischer said the guy's head was low to the sill, "he seemed to be
laying down there or in a funny position". I see a guy trying to conceal
himself by keeping the window open only a quarter or so, and bringing his
head down on occasion to get a better look. The witnesses outside on the
street didn't know the window sills were only a foot off the ground and to
bring your head that low from a sitting position would obviously put your
rump about the height of your head - giving the impression you were lying
down. Note the relative height of the box in the background and the height
of the window sill (bottom image):

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm

That's if anything ANTI-concealment.

No, it's not.

The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Fischer's testimony?

You mean this?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FISCHER - Which would have been the first time we could have seen any of the cars because of the building---about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn't watching-uh---he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Elm Street. And--uh--all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed.
Mr. BELIN - In what window did you see the man?
Mr. FISCHER - It was the corner window on Houston Street facing Elm, in the fifth or sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - On what side of the first of all, what building was this you saw him in?
Mr. FISCHER - The Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN - And what side of the building would the window have been in?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been---well, as you're looking toward the front of the building, it would have been to your right.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the building itself has four sides---a north, east, south, and a west side the entire sides of the building. Would this have been the north, south, east, or west side of the building?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been the south side---the entrance.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, on that south side of the building-now, was it the center part of the south side, the east part of the south side, or the west part of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - The east part of the south side.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, with reference to the east corner of the south side there---would it have been the first window next to that corner, the second, the third, or the fourth---or what?
Mr. FISCHER - First window.
Mr. BELIN - From the east corner of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
...
Mr. BELIN - Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER - There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. It looked---uh---it's possible that there weren't cases directly behind him because I couldn't see because of him. But---uh---all the rest of the window---a portion behind the window--- there were boxes. It looked like there was space for a man to walk through there between the window and the boxes. But there were boxes in the window, or close to the window there.
== QUOTE ==

Sounds like the sixth floor to me.

Especially since Edwards and Fischer were discussing the same man, and Edwards was quite clear it was the sixth floor.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==

"Next to the top" floor in a seven story building sounds a lot like the sixth floor to me.

Sorry, your song and dance routine about the windows isn't convincing to
me at all, not least because you claim Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit
implies the window was open fully, but I see no such language.

Hank

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?

Again, that doesn't cut it. That's a question, not an answer. Paranoid
you still can't talk about that westernmost window, except to dance around
it.

I already said everyone knows that the westernmost window was open halfway.

Back to square one....

Only if you say that the "nest" window was a quarter-way open.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You admitted, I thought, that the word 'halfway' is ambiguous.

Not in conjunction with a photo which shows a window all the way open.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by John Corbett
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

Fischer & Edwards said, the same day, 11/22/63, that the window was wide
open--or, as Fischer put it in his testimony, he couldn't have seen as
much of the suspect as he did, if it weren't. That alone puts the kibosh
on your argument.

You sure about that?

I thought I had posted a correction re my comment on Fischer's affidavit,
but I don't see it. Maybe I forgot to push the "post" button....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer1.htm
== QUOTE ==
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Ronald B. Fischer Address 4007 Flamingo Drive, Mesquite, Texas Age 24 , Phone No. ER 9-0950 (Employed by the Dallas County Auditor's Office.)
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].
I turned away and by that time the motorcade rounded the corner. And then I heard what I thought was [sic] three shots, and the motorcade was about where that Stemmons Freeway sign is there.
I do remember one peculair [sic] thing happened just at the time I saw the man up there. There was a girl walked in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a rather tall girl, and she looked to me like she might be an employee in that building. She was walking in while everyone else had been coming out.
/s/ Ronald B. Fischer
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ James J. Muleady
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
== QUOTE ==
I see Fischer say "all I could see was his head" and "he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position".
That implies a man with his head low to the sill and the window nearly closed - I don't see how you get from Fischer's language above to the conclusion the window was fully open.

Was it you or Corbett who quoted Fischer, apparently from his testimony,
that the notary or clerk was in a rush and thus his statement here was
compromised? Anyway, whoever did was correct.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I also want to point out that what's pertinent and memorable to one person might not be pertinent and memorable to another. Fischer did notice a young woman going into the building and made certain to mention that, fully understandable as Fischer was just 24. The state of the window? Not so much. He didn't mention it, and from what language you infer it was fully open fully escapes me.

It was in his testimony:
Mr. BELIN - All right.
The statement says that you saw him in the window there. Do you remember how far the window was open?
Mr. FISCHER - The window was open almost all the way open if not all the way open.
Mr. BELIN - By that "all the way"--when you have a window all the way open of that kind, of course, you just have a half of the window case that is open. Is that correct?
Mr. FISCHER - That's right. You still have half an area of the opening covered by glass.
Mr. BELIN - Was it the bottom area that was open or the top area?
Mr. FISCHER - The bottom area. The window looked to be---uh--a window that raised from the bottom up.
Mr. BELIN - And it appeared to be almost as fully open as you could, or fully open?
Mr. FISCHER - Or fully open. Yes--Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past the top of his head had it not been--and his shoulders.

Thus does Fischer make it crystal clear that the window was open as far as
it could have been, unlike the "nest" window.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

We know that because he and

Post by John Corbett
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment.

Always thought that that was the idea for having the "nest" window halfway
open. Whose idea I don't know.

Duh. Obviously it the sixth floor assassin's idea to only open the window
as much as necessary.

Duh. You of course mean "fifth floor assassin"....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
I see you use the "halfway open" language here to describe the SE corner
window of the sixth floor. Elsewhere you use that language to describe the
window on the the SW corner of the sixth floor.

If I did, it was in error, since that window is wide open.

As I noted, the term is

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
ambiguous.

But, yes, that gives the window a LOOK of
someone trying not to be seen. But your thesis goes out the uh window
because the suspect was obviously trying TO BE SEEN.

No, he wasn't.

I mean, Brennan
said, at one point, that it looked as if the guy was LYING ON THE SILL!

And Fischer said the guy's head was low to the sill

But, below, you quote him as saying that he could see the middle of his
chest. How could Fischer see his chest if the guy was bending his head
down to the sill?

, "he seemed to be

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
laying down there or in a funny position". I see a guy trying to conceal
himself by keeping the window open only a quarter or so, and bringing his
head down on occasion to get a better look. The witnesses outside on the
street didn't know the window sills were only a foot off the ground and to
bring your head that low from a sitting position would obviously put your
rump about the height of your head - giving the impression you were lying
down. Note the relative height of the box in the background and the height
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm

That's if anything ANTI-concealment.

No, it's not.

The perp's actions here contradict
the half-open window, as does Fischer's testimony.

Fischer's testimony?
You mean this?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fischer.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. FISCHER - Which would have been the first time we could have seen any of the cars because of the building---about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn't watching-uh---he didn't look like he was watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Elm Street. And--uh--all the time I watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there transfixed.
Mr. BELIN - In what window did you see the man?
Mr. FISCHER - It was the corner window on Houston Street facing Elm, in the fifth or sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - On what side of the first of all, what building was this you saw him in?
Mr. FISCHER - The Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN - And what side of the building would the window have been in?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been---well, as you're looking toward the front of the building, it would have been to your right.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the building itself has four sides---a north, east, south, and a west side the entire sides of the building. Would this have been the north, south, east, or west side of the building?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been the south side---the entrance.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, on that south side of the building-now, was it the center part of the south side, the east part of the south side, or the west part of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - The east part of the south side.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, with reference to the east corner of the south side there---would it have been the first window next to that corner, the second, the third, or the fourth---or what?
Mr. FISCHER - First window.
Mr. BELIN - From the east corner of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
...
Mr. BELIN - Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER - There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. It looked---uh---it's possible that there weren't cases directly behind him because I couldn't see because of him. But---uh---all the rest of the window---a portion behind the window--- there were boxes. It looked like there was space for a man to walk through there between the window and the boxes. But there were boxes in the window, or close to the window there.
== QUOTE ==
Sounds like the sixth floor to me.

Yeah? See what I quoted, above, from a part of his testimony you
apparently are not fond of....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Especially since Edwards and Fischer were discussing the same man, and Edwards was quite clear it was the sixth floor.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==
"Next to the top" floor in a seven story building sounds a lot like the sixth floor to me.

The fifth floor is not the "next to the top". Originally, in his
affidavit, he said, I believe, "all the way open" and "fifth floor".
That's perfectly consistent. The FBI got him to abandon his
consistency....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mr. BELIN - In what window did you see the man?
Mr. FISCHER - It was the corner window on Houston Street facing Elm, in the fifth or sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - On what side of the first of all, what building was this you saw him in?
Mr. FISCHER - The Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN - And what side of the building would the window have been in?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been---well, as you're looking toward the front of the building, it would have been to your right.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the building itself has four sides---a north, east, south, and a west side the entire sides of the building. Would this have been the north, south, east, or west side of the building?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been the south side---the entrance.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, on that south side of the building-now, was it the center part of the south side, the east part of the south side, or the west part of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - The east part of the south side.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, with reference to the east corner of the south side there---would it have been the first window next to that corner, the second, the third, or the fourth---or what?
Mr. FISCHER - First window.
Mr. BELIN - From the east corner of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
...
Mr. BELIN - Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER - There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. It looked---uh---it's possible that there weren't cases directly behind him because I couldn't see because of him. But---uh---all the rest of the window---a portion behind the window--- there were boxes. It looked like there was space for a man to walk through there between the window and the boxes. But there were boxes in the window, or close to the window there.
== QUOTE ==
Sounds like the sixth floor to me.

Yeah? See what I quoted, above, from a part of his testimony you
apparently are not fond of....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Especially since Edwards and Fischer were discussing the same man, and Edwards was quite clear it was the sixth floor.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==
"Next to the top" floor in a seven story building sounds a lot like the sixth floor to me.

The fifth floor is not the "next to the top". Originally, in his
affidavit, he said, I believe, "all the way open" and "fifth floor".
That's perfectly consistent. The FBI got him to abandon his
consistency....

Why do you always ignore inconvenient things that are pointed out to you?
Here it is again:
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floo.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.

Edwards explains why his affidavit mistakenly said the shooter was on the
fifth floor.Originally he had failed to count the first floor. He
description of the shooter's window as being one floor below the top floor
could only mean the sixth floor. Why do you always ignore inconvenient
things that are pointed out to you? Here it is again:

Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floo.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.

Why do you always ignore the inconvenient things that are pointed out to
you? Edwards explains why his affidavit mistakenly said the shooter was on
the fifth floor. Originally he had failed to count the first floor. His
description of the shooter's window as being one floor below the top floor
could only mean the sixth floor.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Mr. BELIN - In what window did you see the man?
Mr. FISCHER - It was the corner window on Houston Street facing Elm, in the fifth or sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - On what side of the first of all, what building was this you saw him in?
Mr. FISCHER - The Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN - And what side of the building would the window have been in?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been---well, as you're looking toward the front of the building, it would have been to your right.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the building itself has four sides---a north, east, south, and a west side the entire sides of the building. Would this have been the north, south, east, or west side of the building?
Mr. FISCHER - It would have been the south side---the entrance.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, on that south side of the building-now, was it the center part of the south side, the east part of the south side, or the west part of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - The east part of the south side.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Now, with reference to the east corner of the south side there---would it have been the first window next to that corner, the second, the third, or the fourth---or what?
Mr. FISCHER - First window.
Mr. BELIN - From the east corner of the south side?
Mr. FISCHER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
...
Mr. BELIN - Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER - There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. It looked---uh---it's possible that there weren't cases directly behind him because I couldn't see because of him. But---uh---all the rest of the window---a portion behind the window--- there were boxes. It looked like there was space for a man to walk through there between the window and the boxes. But there were boxes in the window, or close to the window there.
== QUOTE ==
Sounds like the sixth floor to me.

Yeah? See what I quoted, above, from a part of his testimony you
apparently are not fond of....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Especially since Edwards and Fischer were discussing the same man, and Edwards was quite clear it was the sixth floor.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==
"Next to the top" floor in a seven story building sounds a lot like the sixth floor to me.

The fifth floor is not the "next to the top". Originally, in his
affidavit, he said, I believe, "all the way open" and "fifth floor".
That's perfectly consistent. The FBI got him to abandon his
consistency....

Why do you always ignore inconvenient things that are pointed out to you?
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floo.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Edwards explains why his affidavit mistakenly said the shooter was on the
fifth floor.Originally he had failed to count the first floor. He
description of the shooter's window as being one floor below the top floor
could only mean the sixth floor. Why do you always ignore inconvenient
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floo.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.

See how easy a mistake it is to make?

Post by John Corbett
Why do you always ignore the inconvenient things that are pointed out to
you? Edwards explains why his affidavit mistakenly said the shooter was on
the fifth floor. Originally he had failed to count the first floor. His
description of the shooter's window as being one floor below the top floor
could only mean the sixth floor.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was. We know that because he and
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you

Ah ha. Must be some evil inent.
Maybe the person is trying to hide his face and intends to throw
firecrackers. You've solved the case. The first noise WAS a firecracker.
Or a pigeon fart.
Good work.

Post by John Corbett
think someone would only open the window partially. Do you think someone
who wanted to watch the motorcade would only open the window halfway which
would force them to get down even lower in order to look out. Or do you
think opening the window partially is something somebody would do in order
to maintain partial concealment. The window on the 6th floor was open just
enough to give a shooter a clear line of sight to the limo as it traveled
down Elm St. Somebody who only wanted to watch the motorcade from that
window would have opened it all the way.

[John Corbett]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was. We know that because he and
the other witnesses place the shooter on the SIXTH floor which we know
from the photos was only partially open. Does that make you happy? We know
the shooter was not on the fifth floor because we have three employees who
said they were on that floor and their presence is corroborated by a photo
and a film. It is ludicrous that you would toss out that fact and all the
forensic evidence that was found on the sixth floor just because a few
witnesses months later recalled the window being more wide open than it
actually was.
Let me throw something else out at you. Given how low the windows on both
the fifth and sixth floor were, about a foot above the floor, why do you

Ah ha. Must be some evil inent.
Maybe the person is trying to hide his face and intends to throw
firecrackers. You've solved the case. The first noise WAS a firecracker.
Or a pigeon fart.
Good work.

You take inane to a whole new level.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".

Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

I suppose your arguments could become more inane but it is hard to imagine
how.

Nobody ever claimed Jackson had a perfect memory. I merely pointed out the
parts of his testimony that don't fit with your ridiculous theory.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

I suppose your arguments could become more inane but it is hard to imagine
how.
Nobody ever claimed Jackson had a perfect memory. I merely pointed out the
parts of his testimony that don't fit with your ridiculous theory.

Corbett BEFORE: "Halfway! Halfway! Halfway!'
Corbett AFTER: "We just can't trust Jackson's memory!"

When cornered, LNs revise their "proof", which then goes "poof!"

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

Faulty comparison...

If Jackson said and meant halfway, I would have no problem accepting his
recollection, because it agrees with his claim the shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window, which is also what the photographs
establish as the state of the window.

If Jackson said and meant all the way, I would have a big problem
accepting his recollection, because it disagrees with his claim the
shooter was on the sixth floor in the SE corner window, and disagrees with
what the photos show as the state of the window.

Quite simply, the photos take precedence over Jackson's recollection.

You appear to not understand how crime solving works. You don't discard
the evidence because the witness recalled something incorrectly. You
discard the witness recollection.

Post by donald willis
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

Straw man argument. No one here described Jackson as having a photographic
memory. In fact, we've gone to great pains to point out to you that
witnesses are unreliable in their recollections, but film and photos are
not. You don't appear to grasp that.

Hank

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

Faulty comparison...
If Jackson said and meant halfway, I would have no problem accepting his
recollection, because it agrees with his claim the shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window, which is also what the photographs
establish as the state of the window.
If Jackson said and meant all the way, I would have a big problem
accepting his recollection, because it disagrees with his claim the
shooter was on the sixth floor in the SE corner window, and disagrees with
what the photos show as the state of the window.
Quite simply, the photos take precedence over Jackson's recollection.

Obviously you don't include the photo of the westernmost window in this
"simple" statement. I'd agree that that photo does take precedence over
Jackson's "halfway".

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
You appear to not understand how crime solving works. You don't discard
the evidence because the witness recalled something incorrectly. You
discard the witness recollection.

Jackson pointedly ignored the "nest" window in his recalling re how far
the window was open. That plus his designation of the westernmost window
as the one which DID match his memory indicates that perhaps he was NOT
incorrect. Why does it strike me that you and Corbett are as they say on
the ropes?

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

Straw man argument. No one here described Jackson as having a photographic
memory. In fact, we've gone to great pains to point out to you that
witnesses are unreliable in their recollections

I was pointing out that Corbett was perfectly fine with Jackson's
"halfway". He did not question the reliability of THAT recollection. I
pointed out that "halfway" as regards the westernmost window that he
designated was really all the way. Oh, yes, then you two scamper off to
"unreliable", tails between your legs. What a spectacle!

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

Faulty comparison...
If Jackson said and meant halfway, I would have no problem accepting his
recollection, because it agrees with his claim the shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window, which is also what the photographs
establish as the state of the window.
If Jackson said and meant all the way, I would have a big problem
accepting his recollection, because it disagrees with his claim the
shooter was on the sixth floor in the SE corner window, and disagrees with
what the photos show as the state of the window.
Quite simply, the photos take precedence over Jackson's recollection.
You appear to not understand how crime solving works. You don't discard
the evidence because the witness recalled something incorrectly. You
discard the witness recollection.

Post by donald willis
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

Straw man argument. No one here described Jackson as having a photographic
memory. In fact, we've gone to great pains to point out to you that
witnesses are unreliable in their recollections, but film and photos are
not. You don't appear to grasp that.

He was a Photographer for Christ's Sake!
He COULD have taken the most important photograph in history.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Hank

[donald willis]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

Faulty comparison...
If Jackson said and meant halfway, I would have no problem accepting his
recollection, because it agrees with his claim the shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window, which is also what the photographs
establish as the state of the window.
If Jackson said and meant all the way, I would have a big problem
accepting his recollection, because it disagrees with his claim the
shooter was on the sixth floor in the SE corner window, and disagrees with
what the photos show as the state of the window.
Quite simply, the photos take precedence over Jackson's recollection.
You appear to not understand how crime solving works. You don't discard
the evidence because the witness recalled something incorrectly. You
discard the witness recollection.

Post by donald willis
So much for Jackson's heretofore photographic memory. Corbett has been
caught out--by himself!

Straw man argument. No one here described Jackson as having a photographic
memory. In fact, we've gone to great pains to point out to you that
witnesses are unreliable in their recollections, but film and photos are
not. You don't appear to grasp that.

He was a Photographer for Christ's Sake!
He COULD have taken the most important photograph in history.

I think he did--but it was issued as Dillard's wide-angle photo, after
some retouching.

dcw

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
We've all looked at the photo. It's not the photo that's in question to us
(although, ironically, it is to you). It's the state of Jackson's
recollection that's in question, and how accurate it would be more than
three months later as to the state of the window.
You avoid addressing the actual point being made here and rebut a straw
man argument. How do you know Jackson's recollection is accurate?

The basic point which you and Corbett can't address is how wide the window
which Jackson indicated was open. Do that, and we can proceed perhaps to
his memory. We already know that Underwood's memory and observations were
faulty....

What the hell do you want. Do you need Hank and I to say the window in the
photo was more wide open than the shooter's windown on the sixth floor?
That is not in dispute. That doesn't establish ahything except that when
Jackson looked at that photo months later, his memory was a little faulty
as to how wide open the window actually was.

I just realized that, when you were accepting Jackson's word "halfway",
you were not questioning his "faulty" memory! You accepted that word.
Oh, yes, if Jackson said "halfway" he meant halfway, and he remembered
exactly how wide the window was open. Oh, yes. Even "months later".
Now that you're more or less accepting that the window he was talking
about was all the way open, you question his memory. Too late--you had no
qualms about accepting his word THEN, you should have no qualms about his
accepting his memory NOW.

Faulty comparison...
If Jackson said and meant halfway, I would have no problem accepting his
recollection, because it agrees with his claim the shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window, which is also what the photographs
establish as the state of the window.
If Jackson said and meant all the way, I would have a big problem
accepting his recollection, because it disagrees with his claim the
shooter was on the sixth floor in the SE corner window, and disagrees with
what the photos show as the state of the window.

"If Jackson said and meant halfway", "If Jackson said and meant all the
way".... What do those "ifs" have to do with anything? Jackson said
halfway and meant all the way. Your if/thens here are irrelevant.

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story

No, Jackson affirms it. In marking the CE348 photograph, Jackson placed the
shooter on the sixth floor, in the easternmost window, one flight above the
three men on the fifth floor (he only recalled two).
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No.
348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the
two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.
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."
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"!

Hello, sniper's nest.

Post by donald willis
Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)

You're ignoring Jackson's own words that places the shooter on the sixth
floor, Jackson's own marking of the photograph that places the shooter on
the sixth floor and substituting your interpretation of what Jackson
recalled about the window.

Jackson placed the shooter on the sixth floor, one flight above the three
men (he only recalled seeing two). You're also ignoring all the testimony
of the other witnesses, like Brennan, who likewise placed the shooter on
the sixth floor:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BRENNAN. I asked him to get me someone in charge, a Secret Service man
or an FBI. That it appeared to me that they were searching in the wrong
direction for the man that did the shooting.
And he was definitely in the building on the sixth floor.
I did not say on the sixth floor. Correction there.
I believe I identified the window as one window from the top.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Because, at that time, I did not know how many story building
it was.
Representative FORD. But you did say to the policeman it was a window on
the second floor from the top?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway".

Ok, so "halfway" means "all the way" if one doesn't understand how
casement windows work. How would someone who saw the sixth floor
southeastern corner window and understood how casement windows work
describe that window? Wouldn't "halfway" appropriately describe the
condition of that window?

Your problem is that "halfway" is ambiguous. And it can mean "fully open"
or "halfway open" depending on the witness. You're not allowing for that.

Post by donald willis
And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.

On the contrary, you embrace the misleading "halfway" and ignore
everything else.

Post by donald willis
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes,

You seem to forget this is his *recollection* from March 10th of 1964. You
forget to indicate how you know his recollection from more than three
months later is highly accurate on this point. You seem to once again
simply assume what you must prove.

Is it from the work of Elizabeth Loftus, who established that human
recollection is not like a tape recorder or a photograph, but is
malleable, and can be influenced by what one reads or hears, or even how a
question is phrased?

Or is it from the book of CT, where whatever a witness said is gospel, as
long as it can be utilized to argue the Warren Commission got it wrong?

Post by donald willis
and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.

Only in your eyes, Don.

His recollection of what transpired during the shooting is affirmed by
other witnesses also in his car, specifically where the shooter was, one
flight about Oswald's co-workers on the fifth floor. In addition to
Jackson, some of the others were Tom Dillard, James Underwood, and James
Darnell. Darnell did not testify, but the others testified thusly about
what happened during and immediately after the shooting:

JACKSON:
== QUOTE ==

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I
believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to
that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who
said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before
he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or
we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the
President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the
second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than
they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us
were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me
which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed
two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my
eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or
what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and
just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and
I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the
window.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I
tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course,
it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.
== UNQUOTE ==

DILLARD:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They
killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some
running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we
were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School
Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said,
"There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready.
He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open
windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought
my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the
third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then
he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung
to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera,
100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily
photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a
considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid
sequence with the two cameras.
== UNQUOTE ==

UNDERWOOD:
== QUOTE ==
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir; the last two. Now, the first was just a loud
explosion but it sounded like a giant firecracker or something had gone
off. By the time the third shot was fired, the car I was in stopped almost
through the intersection in front of the Texas School Book Depository
Building and I leaped out of the car before the car stopped. Bob Jackson
from the Herald said he thought he saw a rifle in the window and I looked
where he pointed and I saw nothing. Below the window he was pointing at, I
saw two colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the
top of the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
coming from.
Mr. BALL. What words did you hear Bob Jackson say?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I don't know that I can remember exactly except I did hear
him say words to the effect that "I saw a rifle" and I looked at that
instant and I saw nothing myself. If he saw a rifle, I did not.
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes?

Maybe because what was before the witnesses eyes is better than a
recollection of how wide open a window was. And what was before the
witnesses eyes was the shooter was one flight above the men on the fifth
floor. That's what Underwood, Dillard and Jackson indicated in their
testimony.

Post by donald willis
Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did.

That's a very big IF. When do you intend to prove it, rather than assume
it?

That IF is more than contradicted by the testimony of Jackson, Dillard,
and Underwood. All three gave testimony that indicates the shooter was one
flight above the men on the fifth floor, placing the shooter on the sixth
floor, in the far right-hand corner window (the SE corner window).

Post by donald willis
Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor.

Common knowledge at 12:30, during the shooting?

No, Don.

I point you to the testimony of Tom Dillard, who said that Jackson
indicated the location of the shooter precisely when the shooting
occurred, and that's how Dillard knew what to photograph: "...And then he
said it was the second [window] from the top in the right hand side..."

You are finding reasons to discount every bit of testimony you don't like.
Keep it up. It establishes beyond any doubt why your arguments get no
traction here.

Post by donald willis
But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.

Your interpretation (which you incorrect state as a fact) doesn't take
precedence over the eyewitness testimony. Jackson testified he saw the
rifle one flight above the men on the fifth floor. Other witnesses -
Dillard and Underwood - also indicate the evidence before them at the time
was sufficient to determine the window the shooter was in. They were
there. You were not. Their testimony takes precedence over your inventive
interpretations of what window was meant by 'fully open' versus 'halfway
open'.

Post by donald willis
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window.

Brennan indicated the shooter was on the second floor from the top. Edwards
indicated the man was in the fifth floor window in his 11/22/63 affidavit,
but corrected that to the sixth floor in his testimony. He explained in
counting up on 11/22 he didn't count the bottom floor (it had a facade that
concealed all the windows):
== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's
department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth
floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of
books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man
on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back.
That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floor.
== UNQUOTE ==

Fischer indicated the man he and Edwards saw was likewise on the fifth
floor of the Depository in his affidavit, like Edwards. In his testimony,
he corrected that to the "fifth or sixth" floor and specified the shooter
was in the SE corner window. But since he and Edwards were discussing the
same man, and Edwards admitted the shooter was on the sixth floor (not the
fifth, due to his miscount), we know the man Fischer saw was also on the
sixth floor, in the SE corner window.

Based on the all the above, as well as other testimony by other witnesses
and the other facts, like the shells and rifle being found on the sixth
floor by the investigators, I conclude the Depository shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window. Your inventive interpretations don't
sway me from that conclusion.

Post by donald willis
None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.

*All *of them pointed to the sixth floor sniper's nest window, leaving
your inventive re-interpretations about how wide open the window was
aside.

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?

Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.

You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.

Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus

Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

Hank

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The breakthrough!--Corbett takes a bye on key point of Jackson's
testimony, unintentionally sinks "sniper's nest" story

No, Jackson affirms it.

I might have known that Hank would come to the defense of the
indefensible! Yes, we have a SECOND lemming. Can Bud be far behind?

In marking the CE348 photograph, Jackson placed the

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
shooter on the sixth floor, in the easternmost window

I notice, below, that you seem to cut off the quote just before Specter
had to CORRECT Jackson, who actually put a mark over the second window
from the end. Nice going.

, one flight above the

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
three men on the fifth floor (he only recalled two).
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No.
348 and ask you if you can identify what that depicts?
Mr. JACKSON - This is the School Book Depository. This is the window the
two colored men were looking out of. This is the window where the rifle was.
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."
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
And so, Bye, "sniper's nest"!

Hello, sniper's nest.

You mean, Hello, second window from the end.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
Arch-LN John Corbett finally, if
unwittingly, waved the white flag on July 21st. Backed into a corner when
asked, "How wide did Jackson show that the window was open?", Corbett was
forced to reply, "I don't give a shit how wide open the window was. You
5th-floor for the rifle oh, yeah!" alt.assassination.jfk 7/21/20)
The backdrop for this exchange is Dallas Times Herald photographer Robert
Jackson's "I would say that [the "sniper's nest" window] was open like
that window there, halfway." Commission counsel Arlen Specter,
fortunately, follows up, "Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the [Texas School Book Depository] open halfway as
you have described it." (v2p159)

You're ignoring Jackson's own words that places the shooter on the sixth
floor, Jackson's own marking of the photograph that places the shooter on
the sixth floor and substituting your interpretation of what Jackson
recalled about the window.

Ah! another convert to the Ignore the Photo Which Jackson Used to Show How
Wide the Window Was Open ploy....

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Jackson placed the shooter on the sixth floor, one flight above the three
men (he only recalled seeing two). You're also ignoring all the testimony
of the other witnesses, like Brennan, who likewise placed the shooter on
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BRENNAN. I asked him to get me someone in charge, a Secret Service man
or an FBI. That it appeared to me that they were searching in the wrong
direction for the man that did the shooting.
And he was definitely in the building on the sixth floor.
I did not say on the sixth floor. Correction there.
I believe I identified the window as one window from the top.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. Because, at that time, I did not know how many story building
it was.
Representative FORD. But you did say to the policeman it was a window on
the second floor from the top?
Mr. BRENNAN. Right.
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
I say "fortunately" because the photo which Jackson indicates, on CE 348,
shows that the window to which Jackson was comparing the "nest" window
was, in fact, by contrast, open all the way. Corbett has been clinging
closely to that misleading (in this case) word "halfway", which word he
was more than happy to acknowledge, as it would seem to describe the
condition of the "nest" window at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
But he adamantly (see above) refused to acknowledge what the photo itself
shows: a window open as far as it could have been opened, not a window
open halfway. That westernmost window is a casement window, a window in
which only the bottom half can open, when pulled upwards. So someone
unfamiliar with how casement windows operate might think that one which
was all the way open would seem only "open halfway".

Ok, so "halfway" means "all the way" if one doesn't understand how
casement windows work. How would someone who saw the sixth floor
southeastern corner window and understood how casement windows work
describe that window? Wouldn't "halfway" appropriately describe the
condition of that window?

Desperate misdirection. An LN cannot, it seems, dare to correct a fellow
LN when he's obviously in the wrong.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Your problem is that "halfway" is ambiguous.

Not in terms of the wide-open westernmost window on the 6th floor.
Clearly, there, "halfway" is fully wrong.

And it can mean "fully open"

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
or "halfway open" depending on the witness. You're not allowing for that.

You're not allowing for the fact that, fortunately, Specter pointed out
WHICH window, exactly, Jackson was talking about when he said "halfway".
We don't have to depend simply on the witness. And note that he did NOT
use the "sniper's nest" window to indicate how far the window was open.
He had to use a different window for his illustration.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
And Specter was only
too happy to confirm Jackson's misleading phrase. Corbett, quick like a
bunny, embraced it, too. Not so much the actual photo, to which he has an
aversion bordering on phobia.

On the contrary, you embrace the misleading "halfway" and ignore
everything else.

Yes, you and Corbett continue to ignore that westernmost window. Keep
batting around that "halfway" and ignore the window itself. The photo of
that window is worth a thousand of your "halfways".

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
Jackson was enabled to use another window to illustrate how wide the
"nest" window was open, only because Specter, happily, did not tell him
that the latter, in CE 348, was open just like it was at 12:30, genuinely
halfway. (CE 348 was taken later that day or the next day.) Jackson
ignored the "nest" window, for illustration purposes,

You seem to forget this is his *recollection* from March 10th of 1964. You
forget to indicate how you know his recollection from more than three
months later is highly accurate on this point.

You and Corbett can't even bring yourselves to acknowledge what his
"recollection" WAS "on this point". Is the easternmost window on the the
6th floor open as fully as the westernmost window? What does the photo
show?

You seem to once again

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
simply assume what you must prove.
Is it from the work of Elizabeth Loftus, who established that human
recollection is not like a tape recorder or a photograph, but is
malleable, and can be influenced by what one reads or hears, or even how a
question is phrased?
Or is it from the book of CT, where whatever a witness said is gospel, as
long as it can be utilized to argue the Warren Commission got it wrong?

Post by donald willis
and selected,
instead, a window at the other end of the building. He thus cancelled out
his mark at (or near) "the very end" on the SE corner. He had a chance to
confirm the accuracy of his placement of that mark, and blew it.

Only in your eyes, Don.
His recollection of what transpired during the shooting is affirmed by
other witnesses

His recollection re how wide the window was open is affirmed by other
witnesses--Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards.


also in his car, specifically where the shooter was, one

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
flight about Oswald's co-workers on the fifth floor. In addition to
Jackson, some of the others were Tom Dillard, James Underwood, and James
Darnell. Darnell did not testify, but the others testified thusly about
== QUOTE ==
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I
believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to
that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who
said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before
he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or
we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the
President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the
second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than
they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us
were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me
which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed
two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them

Williams and Jarman never, I believe, said that they were "straining to
see directly above them". Norman did say that, in his first statement (to
the FBI), then, in his testimony, said that that assertion was not true.

, and my

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or
what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and
just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and
I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the
window.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do next?
Mr. JACKSON - I said "There is the gun," or it came from that window. I
tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course,
it was gone, and about that time, we were beginning to turn the corner.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They
killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some
running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we
were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School
Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said,
"There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready.
He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open
windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought
my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the
third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then
he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung
to it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera,
100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily
photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a
considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid
sequence with the two cameras.
== UNQUOTE ==
== QUOTE ==
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir; the last two. Now, the first was just a loud
explosion but it sounded like a giant firecracker or something had gone
off. By the time the third shot was fired, the car I was in stopped almost
through the intersection in front of the Texas School Book Depository
Building and I leaped out of the car before the car stopped. Bob Jackson
from the Herald said he thought he saw a rifle in the window and I looked
where he pointed and I saw nothing. Below the window he was pointing at, I
saw two colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the
top of the building

See above. The witnesses disagree with Underwood & Dillard on this point.

, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
coming from.
Mr. BALL. What words did you hear Bob Jackson say?
Mr. UNDERWOOD. I don't know that I can remember exactly except I did hear
him say words to the effect that "I saw a rifle" and I looked at that
instant and I saw nothing myself. If he saw a rifle, I did not.
== UNQUOTE ==

Post by donald willis
Back to Corbett. Why would someone not want to admit what was right
before his eyes?

Maybe because what was before the witnesses eyes is better than a
recollection of how wide open a window was.

We weren't talking about other eyes, just Corbett's. Neither you nor he
can bring yourself to admit what's right before your eyes--that is, just
"how wide" that west window was open.

And what was before the

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
witnesses eyes was the shooter was one flight above the men on the fifth
floor. That's what Underwood, Dillard and Jackson indicated in their
testimony.

Post by donald willis
Perhaps because Mr. Corbett knows that Jackson's
testimony re the window is the foundation on which the testimony of Camera
Car 3 witnesses Jackson and Tom Dillard rests. That is, if the shooter's
window was wide open--as Jackson indicated that it was--then the shooter
did NOT fire from the "sniper's nest", though Jackson and Dillard
testified that he did.

That's a very big IF. When do you intend to prove it, rather than assume
it?
That IF is more than contradicted by the testimony of Jackson, Dillard,
and Underwood. All three gave testimony that indicates the shooter was one
flight above the men on the fifth floor, placing the shooter on the sixth
floor, in the far right-hand corner window (the SE corner window).

That "if" is supported by Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
Jackson corrected Specter--and himself--when
Specter noted that Jackson had marked the "westerly half of the first
double window" as the shooter's window: "I just marked the
double-window... The rifle window... [was] on the very end." (v2p159)
However, Jackson pointedly did NOT correct Specter when Specter indicated
the "westernmost", fully-open window as showing how far the "nest" window
was open, at 12:30. Apparently, it was common knowledge that the
shooter's window was supposed to be the very end window on the SE corner
of the sixth floor.

Common knowledge at 12:30, during the shooting?
No, Don.
I point you to the testimony of Tom Dillard, who said that Jackson
indicated the location of the shooter precisely when the shooting
occurred, and that's how Dillard knew what to photograph: "...And then he
said it was the second [window] from the top in the right hand side..."
You are finding reasons to discount every bit of testimony you don't like.
Keep it up. It establishes beyond any doubt why your arguments get no
traction here.

Post by donald willis
But poor Jackson didn't know that the shooter's
window was also supposed to be only halfway open. So he was free to tell
the truth re its state.

Your interpretation (which you incorrect state as a fact) doesn't take
precedence over the eyewitness testimony. Jackson testified he saw the
rifle one flight above the men on the fifth floor. Other witnesses -
Dillard and Underwood - also indicate the evidence before them at the time
was sufficient to determine the window the shooter was in. They were
there. You were not. Their testimony takes precedence over your inventive
interpretations of what window was meant by 'fully open' versus 'halfway
open'.

Fortunately, I did not have to "interpret" what Jackson meant by "halfway"
and Brennan meant by "wide open"--they illustrated those words by drawing
attention to windows OTHER than the "nest" window.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The other witnesses who were questioned re how wide the "rifle window" was
open--Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, Robert Edwards--were equally unaware
that that window was supposed to be open only half as far as it could have
been, and thus also felt free to say that it was actually open all the
way, like Jackson's westernmost sixth-floor window.

Brennan indicated the shooter was on the second floor from the top. Edwards
indicated the man was in the fifth floor window in his 11/22/63 affidavit,
but corrected that to the sixth floor in his testimony. He explained in
counting up on 11/22 he didn't count the bottom floor (it had a facade that
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's
department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth
floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of
books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man
on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back.
That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floor.
== UNQUOTE ==

Notice, however, that Edwards was NOT corrected re how wide he had said
the window was open. "All the way" I think he said in his affidavit.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Fischer indicated the man he and Edwards saw was likewise on the fifth
floor of the Depository in his affidavit, like Edwards. In his testimony,
he corrected that to the "fifth or sixth" floor and specified the shooter
was in the SE corner window. But since he and Edwards were discussing the
same man, and Edwards admitted the shooter was on the sixth floor (not the
fifth, due to his miscount), we know the man Fischer saw was also on the
sixth floor, in the SE corner window.
Based on the all the above, as well as other testimony by other witnesses
and the other facts, like the shells and rifle being found on the sixth
floor by the investigators, I conclude the Depository shooter was on the
sixth floor in the SE corner window. Your inventive interpretations don't
sway me from that conclusion.

Post by donald willis
None of the above
witnesses pointed to the "sniper's nest" window to show how wide it was
open, at the time of the shooting, or immediately before and after.

*All *of them pointed to the sixth floor sniper's nest window, leaving
your inventive re-interpretations about how wide open the window was
aside.

I go by what the witnesses said and illustrated on this point. No need to
interpret.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!

And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open. A sensible person would conclude in the face of all that other
evidence that the witnesses who said the window was wide open were wrong
on that point. A dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would conclude that all
that other evidence is fraudulent and the only thing the witnesses got
right was the window being wide open.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open. A sensible person would conclude in the face of all that other
evidence that the witnesses who said the window was wide open were wrong
on that point. A dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would conclude that all
that other evidence is fraudulent and the only thing the witnesses got
right was the window being wide open.

Which window? That could be dangerous. Someone could fall out of a wide
open window. That's what happened to Oswald in Red Dwarf.

[BOZ]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open. A sensible person would conclude in the face of all that other
evidence that the witnesses who said the window was wide open were wrong
on that point. A dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would conclude that all
that other evidence is fraudulent and the only thing the witnesses got
right was the window being wide open.

Which window? That could be dangerous. Someone could fall out of a wide
open window. That's what happened to Oswald in Red Dwarf.

Red Dwarf? The autobiography of KIM JONG EUN?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by BOZ

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open. A sensible person would conclude in the face of all that other
evidence that the witnesses who said the window was wide open were wrong
on that point. A dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would conclude that all
that other evidence is fraudulent and the only thing the witnesses got
right was the window being wide open.

Which window? That could be dangerous. Someone could fall out of a wide
open window. That's what happened to Oswald in Red Dwarf.

Red Dwarf? The autobiography of KIM JONG EUN?

BBC show. Science Fiction about time travelellers.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open. A sensible person would conclude in the face of all that other
evidence that the witnesses who said the window was wide open were wrong
on that point. A dedicated conspiracy hobbyist would conclude that all
that other evidence is fraudulent and the only thing the witnesses got
right was the window being wide open.

See?

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

dcw

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Right, but he believes the physical evidence that we cite was planted or
is fake.

So he has discrepancies/inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts
supporting his conspiracy view AND any contradictory evidence to his view
is *also* supportive of his conspiracy theory.

The very evidence you cite to support your view - and that undermines his
- is cited by him to support his. Since again, for him, the physical
evidence, e.g., the shells, were planted.

It's an endless series of conspiracies, of people reading from a script,
of evidence being planted to support that script. People are moved around
on this giant conspiracy chessboard like pieces, like things and NOT as
real human beings. It's a bizarre view of people - they're not real flesh
and blood beings, they are things, objects.

[John Corbett]

Post by Steven M. Galbraith

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Right, but he believes the physical evidence that we cite was planted or
is fake.
So he has discrepancies/inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts
supporting his conspiracy view AND any contradictory evidence to his view
is *also* supportive of his conspiracy theory.
The very evidence you cite to support your view - and that undermines his
- is cited by him to support his. Since again, for him, the physical
evidence, e.g., the shells, were planted.
It's an endless series of conspiracies, of people reading from a script,
of evidence being planted to support that script. People are moved around
on this giant conspiracy chessboard like pieces, like things and NOT as
real human beings. It's a bizarre view of people - they're not real flesh
and blood beings, they are things, objects.

That's been pretty much SOP for conspiracy hobbyists for over five
decades. The evidence runs contrary to what they want to believe so it
must be the evidence that is fraudulent. Any and all evidence that runs
counter to their theories must be dismissed no matter how cockamamie an
excuse that is needed to do that. Don's claim that Fritz carried the
shells from the fifth floor to the sixth is a perfect example of that.
There is zero evidence Fritz did that but because that is what had to
happen to make his theory seem plausible to him, then it must have
happened. Of course that still leaves him with the rifle, the rifle bag,
and Oswald's prints on the sixth floor. I'm sure he could give us an
equally implausible explanation for how those got moved from the fifth to
the sixth floor.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by Steven M. Galbraith

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Right, but he believes the physical evidence that we cite was planted or
is fake.
So he has discrepancies/inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts
supporting his conspiracy view AND any contradictory evidence to his view
is *also* supportive of his conspiracy theory.
The very evidence you cite to support your view - and that undermines his
- is cited by him to support his. Since again, for him, the physical
evidence, e.g., the shells, were planted.
It's an endless series of conspiracies, of people reading from a script,
of evidence being planted to support that script. People are moved around
on this giant conspiracy chessboard like pieces, like things and NOT as
real human beings. It's a bizarre view of people - they're not real flesh
and blood beings, they are things, objects.

That's been pretty much SOP for conspiracy hobbyists for over five
decades. The evidence runs contrary to what they want to believe so it
must be the evidence that is fraudulent. Any and all evidence that runs
counter to their theories must be dismissed no matter how cockamamie an
excuse that is needed to do that.

Then my theory that Oswald was most probably the depository shooter is
cockamamie....

Don's claim that Fritz carried the

Post by John Corbett
shells from the fifth floor to the sixth is a perfect example of that.
There is zero evidence Fritz did that but because that is what had to
happen to make his theory seem plausible to him, then it must have
happened. Of course that still leaves him with the rifle, the rifle bag,
and Oswald's prints on the sixth floor. I'm sure he could give us an
equally implausible explanation for how those got moved from the fifth to
the sixth floor.

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by Steven M. Galbraith

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Right, but he believes the physical evidence that we cite was planted or
is fake.
So he has discrepancies/inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts
supporting his conspiracy view AND any contradictory evidence to his view
is *also* supportive of his conspiracy theory.
The very evidence you cite to support your view - and that undermines his
- is cited by him to support his. Since again, for him, the physical
evidence, e.g., the shells, were planted.
It's an endless series of conspiracies, of people reading from a script,
of evidence being planted to support that script. People are moved around
on this giant conspiracy chessboard like pieces, like things and NOT as
real human beings. It's a bizarre view of people - they're not real flesh
and blood beings, they are things, objects.

That's been pretty much SOP for conspiracy hobbyists for over five
decades. The evidence runs contrary to what they want to believe so it
must be the evidence that is fraudulent. Any and all evidence that runs
counter to their theories must be dismissed no matter how cockamamie an
excuse that is needed to do that.

Then my theory that Oswald was most probably the depository shooter is
cockamamie....

That's the only thing you got right. Nobody's perfect.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by Steven M. Galbraith

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Right, but he believes the physical evidence that we cite was planted or
is fake.
So he has discrepancies/inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts
supporting his conspiracy view AND any contradictory evidence to his view
is *also* supportive of his conspiracy theory.
The very evidence you cite to support your view - and that undermines his
- is cited by him to support his. Since again, for him, the physical
evidence, e.g., the shells, were planted.
It's an endless series of conspiracies, of people reading from a script,
of evidence being planted to support that script. People are moved around
on this giant conspiracy chessboard like pieces, like things and NOT as
real human beings. It's a bizarre view of people - they're not real flesh
and blood beings, they are things, objects.

That's been pretty much SOP for conspiracy hobbyists for over five
decades. The evidence runs contrary to what they want to believe so it
must be the evidence that is fraudulent. Any and all evidence that runs
counter to their theories must be dismissed no matter how cockamamie an
excuse that is needed to do that.

Then my theory that Oswald was most probably the depository shooter is
cockamamie....

Yes, that's called throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Hilarious.

Conspiracy theorists also flit from one explanation to another, never
alighting on the most reasonable. I've seen more than once CTs argue that
Wes Frazier's estimate of the package he saw was highly accurate, and
eliminates the rifle being in the bag. When confronted with the fact that
estimates don't take precedence over measurements, and the actual bag
found in the sixth floor SE corner sniper's nest area bore Oswald's print
AND was measured as long enough to contain the rifle, CTs then argue that
maybe Frazier was mistaken, and Oswald had nothing in his hands. I've seen
it more times than I can count.

Post by donald willis
Don's claim that Fritz carried the

Post by John Corbett
shells from the fifth floor to the sixth is a perfect example of that.
There is zero evidence Fritz did that but because that is what had to
happen to make his theory seem plausible to him, then it must have
happened. Of course that still leaves him with the rifle, the rifle bag,
and Oswald's prints on the sixth floor. I'm sure he could give us an
equally implausible explanation for how those got moved from the fifth to
the sixth floor.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Time for a decent burial for that vaunted "body of evidence"....

[John Corbett]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Time for a decent burial for that vaunted "body of evidence"....

Because you don't want to look at it.

[donald willis]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Time for a decent burial for that vaunted "body of evidence"....

Because you don't want to look at it.

I have been dissecting that carcass for years. Mainly the shells
supposedly found on the 6th floor and those found by a civilian in Oak
Cliff.

[John Corbett]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett
Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Time for a decent burial for that vaunted "body of evidence"....

Because you don't want to look at it.

I have been dissecting that carcass for years. Mainly the shells
supposedly found on the 6th floor and those found by a civilian in Oak
Cliff.

Neither of which fit with your beliefs so you invent excuses to dismiss
them rather than reevaluate your beliefs.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.

Once again you totally ignore the point that was imade. Eyewitnesses can't
establsih anything because they are quite often wrong about important

Don't be cruel. Law enforcement often relies on witnesses when they lack
hard evidence. The shooter must be a black man because their start
witness said the shooter was a black man.

Post by John Corbett
details. Eyewitness accounts are not empiracly evidence. Anything an
eyewitness tells us has to be weighed against the body of evidence as a
whole to determine if the witness is likely right or likely wrong. In this
case witnesses who told us the shooter was firing from a wide open window
were wrong because the body of evidence tells us the shooter fired from
the sixth floor window which was only partially open. There is nothing in
the body of evidence other than the statements by select eyewitnesses that
supports the shooter being on the fifith floor. All evidence other than
select portions of eyewitness statements tells us the shooter was on the
sixth floor.

Silly. SCIENCE proves that 3 shots were fired from the sixth floor.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.
dcw

Asked and answered. Fischer and Edwards were discussing the same man, in
the same window, on the same floor of the Depository. And Edwards admitted
to miscounting the floors and not counting the first floor (obviously
because the windows weren't visible because of a facade that covered the
first floor). He started counting from the second floor and arrived at
five. Had he counted from the first floor he would have arrived at six. He
admitted to that.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's
department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth
floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of
books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man
on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back.
That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the
window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==

Your pretense that Fischer saying "five" somehow still means the fifth
floor is just that - pretense.

Here are photos comparing the state of the Depository back on 11/22/63 and
more recently, with the facade removed.

NOW: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Bw9uE-I1KrsRaaHhdrqTJScVD_1vXwWrhz0p2qEdYsC_RD1qkemzZfGobOzJ8VF7NY0Qs9YDJKPRpcC8a2-ZrfUNClZOO7aeLRDxxRd9xpgnTKDFPdZt9A

Then:
https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+school+book+depository&rlz=1C1DIEZ_enUS736US751&sxsrf=ALeKk01pLLzpupd4RaeYkTWhdH-Xz_gAvQ:1596729293118&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj25sWS-IbrAhVKnOAKHZWeCWEQ_AUoAXoECB8QAw&biw=1366&bih=625#imgrc=dp2exaAjRqEP2M

Keep pretending there is some great mystery about Fischer or any other
witness claiming the shooting was on the fifth floor.

Question for you: When Fischer said the shooter was on the fifth floor,
did he count from the bottom? Did he know the first floor windows were
covered with a facade and the first floor of windows visible was actually
the second floor? Where did you establish that? Or are you doing what CTs
everywhere do, assume what you must prove?

[donald willis]

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis

Post by John Corbett

Post by donald willis

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

Post by donald willis
The one thing which the conspirators did not count on was that witnesses
to a rifle in a window--that is, Jackson and Brennan--would have the state
of that window emblazoned in their memories.

Neither did Elizabeth Loftus, apparently. You know these witnesses had the
"the state of that window emblazoned in their memories" exactly how?
Oh, that's right... you're once more assuming what you need to prove.
You simply don't understand how memory works if you think that anything is
emblazoned on a memory, ever.
Further reading recommended starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
Follow up with any of her published papers or books and get back to us
when you're ready to admit that witnesses are not always the best source
of information.

And yet you provide copious quotes from...WITNESSES!
And, like Corbett, Hank can't say how wide the westernmost 6th-floor
window was open. A lot of verbiage, but nothing re the main point....

Witnesses are neither always right nor always wrong. Sometimes they get
some things right and some things wrong. For instance they might
accurately locate where they saw a shooter but they might be wrong about
how wide open a window is. The sensible way of determining what a witness
tells us is correct and what they got wrong is by determining what can be
corroborated and what can be refuted. The forensic evidence alone tells us
the shooter was on the sixth floor. The photographic evidence also
supports that. The consensus of the witnesses tells us that. The only part
that doesn't fit that was the description of the window as being wide
open.

I didn't have time to check my sources before posting earlier today.
But, yes, Bob Edwards said, in his 11/22 affidavit, that the window was
"wide open all the way". Ron Fischer, however, did not mention how wide
the window was open. It was in his testimony that he said he could not
have seen as much of the suspect if the window were not wide open.
However, in his original affidavit, he did say the man was on the 5th
floor.
dcw

Asked and answered. Fischer and Edwards were discussing the same man, in
the same window, on the same floor of the Depository. And Edwards admitted
to miscounting the floors and not counting the first floor (obviously
because the windows weren't visible because of a facade that covered the
first floor). He started counting from the second floor and arrived at
five. Had he counted from the first floor he would have arrived at six. He
admitted to that.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's
department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the fifth
floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a stack of
books around him, I could see. And you just told me you didn't see a man
on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that back.
That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather than
the fifthfloor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't
count the bottom floor.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you didn't
count thebottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right.
Mr. BELIN - When you went out with the FBI, they asked you to point out the
window?
Mr. EDWARDS - Right.
Mr. BELIN - And you pointed out the same window you saw on November 22?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - The you weren't counting the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - They did.
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch them count?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember how many floors from the top it was?
Mr. EDWARDS - I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top.
== UNQUOTE ==
Your pretense that Fischer saying "five" somehow still means the fifth
floor is just that - pretense.

Not sure what you're getting at here. He DID say "fifth" in his affidavit.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Here are photos comparing the state of the Depository back on 11/22/63 and
more recently, with the facade removed.
NOW: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Bw9uE-I1KrsRaaHhdrqTJScVD_1vXwWrhz0p2qEdYsC_RD1qkemzZfGobOzJ8VF7NY0Qs9YDJKPRpcC8a2-ZrfUNClZOO7aeLRDxxRd9xpgnTKDFPdZt9A
https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+school+book+depository&rlz=1C1DIEZ_enUS736US751&sxsrf=ALeKk01pLLzpupd4RaeYkTWhdH-Xz_gAvQ:1596729293118&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj25sWS-IbrAhVKnOAKHZWeCWEQ_AUoAXoECB8QAw&biw=1366&bih=625#imgrc=dp2exaAjRqEP2M
Keep pretending there is some great mystery about Fischer or any other
witness claiming the shooting was on the fifth floor.
Question for you: When Fischer said the shooter was on the fifth floor,
did he count from the bottom? Did he know the first floor windows were
covered with a facade and the first floor of windows visible was actually
the second floor? Where did you establish that? Or are you doing what CTs
everywhere do, assume what you must prove?

In his testimony, Fischer said that the window had to have been open all
the way in order for him to have seen as much of the suspect as he did.
And a wide-open window tallies with his affidavit "fifth".

dcw