There Was No Shooter on the 6th Floor
dcwi...@netscape.net
The Warren Report authors wanted to have their 6th-floor shooter *and*
their 5th-floor witnesses, too. In order to have both, though, they
first had to explain--or felt that they had to explain--why there
wasn’t a general collision in the vicinity of the 5th-floor stairwell,
as the various exiting parties converged. Hence, this passage (p153):
Oswald’s use of the stairway is consistent with the testimony of other
employees in the building. Three employees--James Jarman Jr., Harold
Norman, and Bonnie Ray Williams--were watching the parade from the 5th
floor, directly below the window from which the shots were fired.
They rushed to the west windows after the shots were fired. While
they were at the west windows, their view of the stairwell was
completely blocked by shelves & boxes. This is the period during
which Oswald would have descended the stairs.
True, a shooter could have run down before or after the west-end rush
(depending on whether the shooter hurried or lingered, respectively),
but the rush was fairly well synched with the most likely time that a
shooter would be clambering down the stairwell. As Williams answered
Joseph Ball’s “Are you able to see the opening of the downstairs from
this view, 492 [the west windows]?”: “No, sir.” (p181)
The west-end charge was perhaps the most consistent element in the
joint testimonies of the three witnesses:
We ran to the west side of the building. (Williams affidavit 11/22/63)
[Williams] & the other 2 then ran to the west end of the building….
(Williams FBI int. 11/23/63)
Jarman said that he & Norman & Williams went to the west side of the
building…. (Jarman FBI int. 11/24/63)
[Norman], Jarman & Williams ran to the other end of the room…. (Norman
FBI int. 11/26/63)
I went to the west side with Williams & Jarman…. (Norman, SS int.
12/4/63)
I ran to the west end of the building…. Hank & Junior also ran to the
west end…. (Williams, FBI int. 3/19/64)
We all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.
(Williams, WC testimony)
We ran to the farthest window facing the expressway. (Norman, WC
testimony)
And so we ran to the west side of the building. (Jarman, WC testimony)
At the hearings, a few retrospective details were added to the basic
west-side run. Williams testified that he led the run: “I left here
& I came like this. The other fellows followed like this.” (v3p177)
And Jarman added that he opened that “farthest window”:
Ball: When you ran down there was the window open or closed?
Jarman: It was closed.
Ball: And who opened it?
Jarman: I did. (v3p205)
Williams concurs. “I believe James Jarman opened the
window.” (v3p177) CE 488 shows the three leaning out said window,
marked “Y“. (Ball: “Now, the other day, when you were up here, you 3
men went to that window & stood there & had your picture taken, did
you not?” Williams: “Yes, sir.” v3p177)
Window “Y” then proved to be objective evidence that the west-side
rush really happened--photos abounded showing “Y” wide open in the
hour after the shooting (e.g., “Pictures of the Pain”, pp460, 471,
499).
Photo & witness evidence, then, seem to be in perfect synch. Ah!
Harmony. But in his 11/23 FBI interview, Williams made an odd gaffe:
Williams stated he & Hank & Junior were standing [at the west windows]
where they would have seen anyone coming down from the 6th floor via
the stairs & that they did not see anyone coming down.
In his Commission testimony, he had to deny that he even said this:
I could not possibly have told him that, because you cannot see
anything coming down [the stairs] from that position (p180).
Certainly, Williams was capable of telling the FBI that, &, if he did,
that would suggest that he was rather hazy, on 11/23/63, re what,
exactly, the view was from the SW corner of the 5th floor. Perhaps,
until the unspecified day of CE 488, he did not realize that the view
of the NW stairs from the SW corner was “completely blocked”. At the
very least, he was forced to retract a part of the original story of
the 5th-floor charge. And it was that retraction, in part, which made
it possible for the WR to conclude that “their view of the stairwell
was completely blocked” during the period that “Oswald would have
descended the stairs”.
But there are a few more parts of the tale of the charge still--in
2008--awaiting retraction. CE 488 is very persuasive: There they
are, the three of them, yes, once again, leaning out that same window
which Jarman opened back in November. Unforcedly, easily, CE 488
makes you think that, yes, it must have happened just like that.
It didn’t.
There are two photos to which the Commission did not have access. In
fact, no one had access to them for decades. It took author Richard
Trask yeoman use of the FOIA, in fact, to finally make them available,
intact, to us, in 1994 (“Pictures of the Pain“ pp259 & 469). But
Trask was apparently unfamiliar with the history of Jarman & Window Y,
& did not realize what he had unearthed.
First: Williams did not lead any *charge*. There he is, still--about
a minute after the shooting--in the second window from the *east*
end. And Window Y, at the west end, is already open! (Powell slide,
p449) Norman & Jarman are not visible at all.
Second: Jarman did not open the westernmost window facing Elm, after
the shooting. Moorman Polaroid #3, taken about 12:26, shows Window Y
already open (p233), well *before* any shot was fired. CE 488 was not
a reconstruction. It was a fabrication. No wonder that there are no
photographs of the trio leaning out the window, on November 22nd, or
of Jarman opening the window! No pictures of them on the west side at
all…. All we have here is their word, & their word is not looking
good.
So, Williams--the day after the assassination--apparently, incorrectly
*guessed* that you could see the stairs from the southwest windows.
And he did not lead the supposed charge to the west end. And he and
Jarman wrongly testified that Jarman opened Window Y after the
shooting. The objective evidence which should have supported the many
witness statements concerning the charge instead succeeded only in
undermining them.
There it is: The photographic *proof* of the charge was in place by
12:26, before it happened, or was supposed to have happened. The
*charge*, then, turns out to be, simply, a vignette developed for the
day of the assassination, a vignette intended to help foster the
illusion that somebody was *up there*, above Williams & co…. somebody
who must have slipped down while they were at the west windows. But
Jarman was not there to open the window, & Williams was not there to
see that you could not see the stairs from the west windows.
Two conclusions:
1) Williams, Norman, & Jarman did not just happen to go to the 5th
floor. An open window was waiting for Jarman & co. for who knows how
long.
2) There was no 6th-floor shooter. If there was no west-end charge,
there was no 6th-floor shooter. The former was supposed to have
precluded a run-in with the latter. Which means that there was no
latter, no chance of a run-in. Anyone from the 5th floor could have
run downstairs--or upstairs--unimpeded, hence the necessity for lying
Window Y….
copr 2008 dcw
Anthony Marsh
The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/254681ba5f0054c8
>>> "The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest." <<<
~~LOL Break~~
The above response by Mr. Anthony Marsh is rich with irony (and
unintentional hilarity).
Of all the wide assortment of different things that prove beyond all doubt
that three shots were, indeed, fired from Oswald's Sniper's Nest on the
6th Floor of the TSBD Building, Tony decides to choose evidence that has
been totally DISCREDITED in virtually every way (the
"acoustical"/Dictabelt) as the best evidence for declaring that "three
shots were fired from the sniper's nest".*
* = I can only assume via his post above that Tony feels that the
"acoustical evidence" (i.e., the hopelessly-flawed and proven-pretty-
much-worthless "DPD Dictabelt" audio recording) is, in fact, the "best
evidence" for proving that three shots came from Oswald's Sniper's Nest.
Because if there was BETTER evidence to prove that three shots came from
the SN, then Tony surely would have utilized that other evidence in his
post above, instead of relying on only the "acoustical evidence". Right,
Tony?
So, Tony's right about the 3 shots from the Nest. But for anyone to think
that the acoustics nonsense is the thing that "proves" that fact more than
all of the other much-better stuff on the table that proves it....is just
laughable.
Ray
The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest.
Actually the acoustical evidence was discredited years ago. There are
NO gunshots on the tape and NO acoustical evidence of shots from
ANYWHERE.
We do know there were shots from SOMEWHERE, but evidence of where the
shots came from must be adduced from sources other than the so-called
acoustic experts. There is no PROOF that any shots were fired from the
sixth floor. The best we can say is that there is SOME evidence pro
and con.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is no PROOF that any shots were fired from the sixth floor. The
best we can say is that there is SOME evidence pro and con. " <<<
The first sentence above is certainly a 100% incorrect statement if
there ever was one.
The 6th-Floor Laundry List:
Howard Brennan.
Bob Jackson.
Mal Couch.
Amos Euins.
Arnold Rowland.
Harold Norman.
James Jarman.
Bonnie Ray Williams.
Many other "Shots Came From The TSBD" witnesses.
Rifle #C2766 found on 6th Floor.
Shells from C2766 found in SN.
CE399 (fired from C2766) found in Parkland.
CE567/569 (fired from C2766) found in limo.
If the above list, in its totality, doesn't add up to "SHOTS WERE
FIRED FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST ON THE SIXTH FLOOR ON NOVEMBER 22", then
it never gets hot in Phoenix.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I'll go with that!
Ray
The 6th-Floor Laundry List:
Rifle #C2766 found on 6th Floor.
Shells from C2766 found in SN.
CE399 (fired from C2766) found in Parkland.
CE567/569 (fired from C2766) found in limo.
These items make it APPEAR as though shots were fired from the sixth
floor, but appearances can be deceiving.
Back in the 1970's the ACCOUSTICS and NAA were thought to be dramatic
PROOF that CE399 & 567/569 were NOT PLANTED but they both turned out
to be JUNK SCIENCE.
Anthony Marsh
Again, those are good clues, but not all are hard evidence of that rifle
being fired that day from the sniper's nest. Do not rely on eyewitnesses.
Rely on scientific evidence. The scientific evidence proves that Oswald's
rifle was fired from the sniper's nest.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 6, 9:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> There Was No Shooter on the 6th Floor
>
> The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
> sniper's nest.
>
> Actually the acoustical evidence was discredited years ago. There are
> NO gunshots on the tape and NO acoustical evidence of shots from
> ANYWHERE.
>
Actually the acoustical evidence was NOT discredited. Just because you
think something in your mind does not make that a fact.
> We do know there were shots from SOMEWHERE, but evidence of where the
> shots came from must be adduced from sources other than the so-called
> acoustic experts. There is no PROOF that any shots were fired from the
> sixth floor. The best we can say is that there is SOME evidence pro
> and con.
>
We can use clues to look for hard evidence. Do not rely on eyewitnesses.
Rely on scientific evidence.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/254681ba5f0054c8
>
>
>>>> "The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
> sniper's nest." <<<
>
> ~~LOL Break~~
>
> The above response by Mr. Anthony Marsh is rich with irony (and
> unintentional hilarity).
>
> Of all the wide assortment of different things that prove beyond all doubt
> that three shots were, indeed, fired from Oswald's Sniper's Nest on the
> 6th Floor of the TSBD Building, Tony decides to choose evidence that has
> been totally DISCREDITED in virtually every way (the
> "acoustical"/Dictabelt) as the best evidence for declaring that "three
> shots were fired from the sniper's nest".*
>
> * = I can only assume via his post above that Tony feels that the
> "acoustical evidence" (i.e., the hopelessly-flawed and proven-pretty-
> much-worthless "DPD Dictabelt" audio recording) is, in fact, the "best
> evidence" for proving that three shots came from Oswald's Sniper's Nest.
It is scientific evidence rather than unreliable eyewitness statements.
> Because if there was BETTER evidence to prove that three shots came from
> the SN, then Tony surely would have utilized that other evidence in his
> post above, instead of relying on only the "acoustical evidence". Right,
> Tony?
>
No, I said proof. There were many clues, but the acoustical evidence is
the only scientific proof.
> So, Tony's right about the 3 shots from the Nest. But for anyone to think
> that the acoustics nonsense is the thing that "proves" that fact more than
> all of the other much-better stuff on the table that proves it....is just
> laughable.
>
Do not rely on eyewitnesses.
geovu...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't the fact that the men on the fifth floor heard the shots above them,
felt dust fall from directly above them as the shots occurred and heard
the casings hitting the floor important missing information here? It's
suprising that you would leave that out as evidence of a sixth floor
shooter while using their testimony to discount a sixth floor shooter.
Anthony Marsh
Those are important clues. But do not RELY on eyewitnesses. Whose
testimony did I discount for "a" sixth floor shooter? Never, no one, no
how. I do not rely on Brennan. Any more than I think Euins was correct
that the shooter was a black man.
If the scientific evidence shows that three shots were fired from the
snipers nest, Occam's Razor suggests that a human fired them. I see no
evidence of any other being to do it or mechanical triggering.
tomnln
<geovu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c8ab52a-ec6c-4b2c...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Then WHY did the 3 of them Run to the west side of the building to view
the grassy knoll like everyone else in D P did?
WHY didn't they Holler down to the Police that they were going the wrong
way?
David Von Pein
>>> "Do not rely on eyewitnesses." <<<
I'm not only relying on witnesses here. I'm also relying on these
things (hard, physical evidence) from my previous Laundry List:
Rifle #C2766 found on 6th Floor.
Shells from C2766 found in SN.
CE399 (fired from C2766) found in Parkland.
CE567/569 (fired from C2766) found in limo.
But Tony wants to rely on a completely-worthless and discredited piece of
evidence -- the "Dictabelt/Acoustics" evidence, which has a morass of
unprovable "What Ifs" associated with it.
Ray
If the scientific evidence shows that three shots were fired from the
snipers nest, Occam's Razor suggests that a human fired them. I seeno
evidence of any other being to do it or mechanical triggering.
But that's a very big IF.
The "scientific" evidence that was supposed to PROVE that 3 shots were
fired from sniper's nest was Dr. Guinn's bullet lead theory and the
accoustics.
traditional ballistics tests only proved that that the rifle was fired at
some point in time, but not that it was fired on November 22nd.
Since both the accoustic theory and the bullet lead comparison theory have
been shown to be JUNK SCIENCE, there is no scientific evidence that the
M-C rifle was fired on November 22nd, 1963.
That may explain why no one smelled gunsmoke, even on the rifle barrel.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Do not rely on eyewitnesses." <<<
>
> I'm not only relying on witnesses here. I'm also relying on these
> things (hard, physical evidence) from my previous Laundry List:
>
> Rifle #C2766 found on 6th Floor.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I use their testimony in conjunction with photographic evidence which
contradicts their testimony. The fact that an open window was waiting
for Jarman to say *he* opened it--after the shooting, when it was
already open *before*--means that the three did not just happen to go
to the 5th floor. They were there to make it seem as if there was
someone on the 6th floor.
It's not a fact that the three heard shots etc. It's just their
testimony, & it changed from statement to statement. The dust/debris
was originally said to have landed on *Norman* (in both Jarman &
Norman's initial FBI statements); by the time of the hearings, it was
landing on *Williams*. Amazing detouring debris! And Barb J has
noted that Norman failed to even mention casings/clicks until about 8
days after 11/22.
dw
yeuhd
> Then WHY did the 3 of them Run to the west side of the building to view
> the grassy knoll like everyone else in D P did?
>
> WHY didn't they Holler down to the Police that they were going the wrong
> way?
Warren Commission testimony of James Jarman:
Mr. BALL. I show you 488. What does that show?
Mr. JARMAN. That shows me leaning out the window and Bonnie Ray and
Harold Norman was over to the side of me.
Mr. BALL. What window?
Mr. JARMAN. The window on the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL. Is that the one to which you ran after you heard the shots?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you looked out that window?
Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. How did you happen to run to that window?
Mr. JARMAN. Well, I wanted to see what was going on mostly, because
that was after the motorcade car had took off, and I thought they had
stopped under the underpass, but they hadn't. So they went on around
the bend, and after I couldn't see from there I ran to another, the
second window.
Warren Commission testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams:
Mr. BALL. You ran down to the west side of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. Ran down to the west side? You mean you were
still on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; we were on the fifth floor, the east side of the
building. We saw the policemen and people running, scared, running —
there are some tracks on the west side of the building, railroad
tracks. They were running. towards that way. And we thought maybe —
well, to ourself, we know the shots practically came from over our
head. But since everybody was running, you know, to the west side of
the building, towards the railroad tracks, we assumed maybe somebody
was down there. And so we all ran that way, the way that the people
was running, and we was looking out the window.
dcwi...@netscape.net
maybe he was right, or he was onto something, at least, that the cover-
uppers didn't want known....
dw
> If the scientific evidence shows that three shots were fired from the
> snipers nest, Occam's Razor suggests that a human fired them. I see no
dcwi...@netscape.net
> <geovult...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Or detain the cop who Williams said was on the 5th floor at the same
time they were!
dw
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 8, 8:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If the scientific evidence shows that three shots were fired from the
> snipers nest, Occam's Razor suggests that a human fired them. I seeno
> evidence of any other being to do it or mechanical triggering.
>
>
> But that's a very big IF.
>
> The "scientific" evidence that was supposed to PROVE that 3 shots were
> fired from sniper's nest was Dr. Guinn's bullet lead theory and the
> accoustics.
>
I am not sure how you think the bullet lead analysis proves that THREE
shots were fired from the sniper's nest. One bullet was never found. The
two largest fragments recovered can not be linked by NAA to that
rifle. They are linked ballistically, which does not need Dr. Guinn.
The ballistics evidence proves that at least one and possibly two or
more bullets were fired from Oswald's rifle during the assassination. It
can not prove three.
> traditional ballistics tests only proved that that the rifle was fired at
> some point in time, but not that it was fired on November 22nd.
>
> Since both the accoustic theory and the bullet lead comparison theory have
> been shown to be JUNK SCIENCE, there is no scientific evidence that the
> M-C rifle was fired on November 22nd, 1963.
>
NAA is not junk science. It just does not tell us what we want to know
about 11/22/63. It can rule OUT other bullet types.
> That may explain why no one smelled gunsmoke, even on the rifle barrel.
This might help explain why so many people smelled gunsmoke in Dealey
Plaza.
Anthony Marsh
You seem to have a very short attention span. I have stated hundreds of
times that the two largest fragments are ballistically linked to Oswald's
rifle. That alone only proves one shot was fired from the sniper's nest.
geovu...@gmail.com
It's rare that a conspiracy leaning comment can be so roundly rejected
in a single post.
Ray
I have stated hundreds of times that the two largest fragments are
ballistically linked to Oswald's
rifle. That alone only proves one shot was fired from the sniper's
nest.
AND YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG EVERY ONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF TIMES. The
ballistics matches, by themselves, tell us NOTHING about WHEN those
bullets/fragments were fired from the rifle. There was no blood on the
bullets, and as we have seen, there are good reasons to suspect that ALL
the ballistics evidence was planted.
Mr Marsh suggests that the accoustics have been debunked only in my mind.
Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Marsh, that's the first time today that
my mind has been compared to the National Academy of Sciences.
Anthony Marsh
No. It means that no one wanted a race riot in Dallas over a simple error.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Or that the conspirators counted on such a reaction!
dw
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 9, 4:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have stated hundreds of times that the two largest fragments are
> ballistically linked to Oswald's
> rifle. That alone only proves one shot was fired from the sniper's
> nest.
>
> AND YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG EVERY ONE OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF TIMES. The
That makes no sense. The fragments got there by hitting the limousine,
no other way. And the limo was unscratched out at Love Field. The only
way those fragments got into the limo was during the shooting.
> ballistics matches, by themselves, tell us NOTHING about WHEN those
> bullets/fragments were fired from the rifle. There was no blood on the
> bullets, and as we have seen, there are good reasons to suspect that ALL
> the ballistics evidence was planted.
>
So what if there was no blood? That means nothing.
No one has ever suggested that the fragments in the limo were planted.
How and when? How does someone inject a fragment into the seat? How does
one fake the dent of the chrome topping. You are grasping at straws to
avoid a simple truth.
Anthony Marsh
I don't see that as a realistic concern. The conspirators would not
intentionally draw attention to a black person when they are white and
trying to frame a white person. It was a simple error.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
I'll have to take a bye on this for now. I'll just say, Perhaps.
Even more problematic (for me): Why would the conspirators set up a
"nest" in an end window & then have someone firing from a second-from-
end window? And yet that's just what seems to have happened--a
patrolman near the underpass reported just such a phenomena, & Tom
Alyea said a uniformed policeman later found *all* the hulls under a
second-from-end window. Can't reconcile all this just now, check with
me in 10 years....
dw
Anthony Marsh
Sorry, but I can't figure out what your question is. The evidence shows
that the rifle was shot from window #1. The cartridges ejected should not
be found under window #1. The ejection port would send them flying a few
feet farther down. In addition, some klutzy cop picked up the shells to
look at them and then threw them down in a slightly different location.
Ray
means nothing.
Actually, the fact that there was no blood on 399 or the fragments is
among the most serious anomalies in the official story. [CF Post
Mortem by Harold Weisberg.]
A.M. No one has ever suggested that the fragments in the limo were
planted.
Ray: Well I know for a fact that I have suggested exactly that, and it
is a logical corollary to the UNREFUTED claim that CE399 was
planted.
A.M. How and when? How does someone inject a fragment into the seat?
The WHEN and WHERE could be anywhere between Dallas and the White
House garage, where the fragments were "discovered." As to the "how",
I don't think an injection was required, but perhaps you will
explain.
If an injection WAS required, the technology was available in 1963,
no?
A.Marsh: How does one fake the dent of the chrome topping.
Ray: Can you point us to some proof that the dent in the chrome came
from one of those fragments?
A.Marsh: You are grasping at straws to avoid a simple truth.
Ray: Which one of us is citing Junk Science (accoustics) to support
his argument?
-
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 10, 10:43 pm, Anthony Marsh So what if there was no blood? That
> means nothing.
>
> Actually, the fact that there was no blood on 399 or the fragments is
> among the most serious anomalies in the official story. [CF Post
> Mortem by Harold Weisberg.]
>
> A.M. No one has ever suggested that the fragments in the limo were
> planted.
>
> Ray: Well I know for a fact that I have suggested exactly that, and it
> is a logical corollary to the UNREFUTED claim that CE399 was
> planted.
>
No, it isn't. You can expect to always find blood on a bullet. In many
cases no blood if found on the bullets when they are rifle bullets which
have perforated the victim. Depending on where it hits it may hit only
muscle and never touch blood. By the time the wound starts to bleed the
bullet is long gone.
> A.M. How and when? How does someone inject a fragment into the seat?
>
> The WHEN and WHERE could be anywhere between Dallas and the White
> House garage, where the fragments were "discovered." As to the "how",
> I don't think an injection was required, but perhaps you will
> explain.
>
One of the fragments was found embedded in the front seat cushion.
If you start going down this road you can claim that all the evidence is
fake and then we get nowhere.
> If an injection WAS required, the technology was available in 1963,
> no?
>
> A.Marsh: How does one fake the dent of the chrome topping.
>
> Ray: Can you point us to some proof that the dent in the chrome came
> from one of those fragments?
>
Yes, the chrome topping was undamaged before the shooting and then when
examined by the FBI a few hours later there was a dent. The two large
fragments could only have gotten there by ricocheting off the limo
parts. They can't magically fall into those specific locations.
> A.Marsh: You are grasping at straws to avoid a simple truth.
>
> Ray: Which one of us is citing Junk Science (accoustics) to support
> his argument?
>
Acoustics is not junk science. It was used and stipulated to by the
defense at the Kent State Massacre case to pinpoint which rifles fired
which shots.
It is used daily to identify where shots are coming from.
>
>
> -
>
>
Ray
You can't (corrected for typo) expect to always find blood on a bullet.
In many cases no blood if found on the bullets when they are rifle bullets
which have perforated the victim. Depending on where it hits it may hit
only muscle and never touch blood. By the time the wound starts to bleed
the bullet is long gone.
We can get expert opinions on the likelihood, I need to check what
Weisberg said about this. Weisberg points out, as I recall, that blood is
not the only identifiably human matter that will attach itself to a
penetrating bullet. I can state as a fact that there is no blood or human
tissue on the limo fragments or CE399.
A.M One of the fragments was found embedded in the front seat cushion.
Perhaps you could explain why "embedding" something in a cushion would
require an injection?
In any homicide investigation, it is prudent to examine each piece of
evidence in the most minute detail.
DO you agree with that general proposition?
A.M. If you start going down this road you can claim that all the
evidence is fake and then we get nowhere.
When you run out of supporting evidence, put words in your opponents'
mouth? ,
A.M. s, the chrome topping was undamaged before the shooting and then when
examined by the FBI a few hours later there was a dent.
Aye, but who or what made the dent, and when was it made?
It is not difficult to put a dent in chrome with simple tools.
A.M The two large fragments could only have gotten there by ricocheting
off the limo parts.
Who says?
A.M. They can't magically fall into those specific locations.
They can be placed there, by human hand (gloved, of course)
A.M. Acoustics is not junk science.
THe tests done by the HSCA experts were proven to be junk science by the
National academy of science. The flaw in their methodology was pointed out
to the academy by Steve Barber. Just like Dr. GUinn,with his CABLA CADABLA
bullet comparisons, the HSCA accoustics experts , were relying on useless
data.
Relying on useless data is one of the hallmarks of junk science.
My posts on this forum refer to the JFK assassination. You will find it
easier to clarify the facts of THIS case if you refrain from importing
facts from other cases in which there is no valid analogy. .
burgundy
>
> - Show quoted text -
There may have been a shooter on the sixth floor but it was not the Oswald
met at the second floor by Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. No way, no how.
Focus on the simple stuff folks. It's obvious. The timing DOES NOT WORK.
Nor does the shooting of the deformed left hand scope- ikmpaired rifle in
the time required by the Zapruder film. That's it.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Apparently, the "klutzy cop" (below) did not know this & placed them
under window #1, the better to look like the rifle was shot from that
window....
The ejection port would send them flying a few
> feet farther down. In addition, some klutzy cop picked up the shells to
> look at them and then threw them down in a slightly different location.
>
You mean Capn Fritz. I guess he didn't know it would be a rather
important homicide. The onlookers who reported this, however, tended
to say that Fritz *pocketed* the shells rather than just threw them
down again. In fact, we can't say exactly what was done with them,
tho we know the Crime Lab photos don't depict their original
positions, & Fritz borderline-lied when he affidavited that he did not
touch the hulls while they were in the depository. I think he wrote
that he told his *subordinates* not to touch the hulls, implying that
he did not touch them either! I wonder who his lawyer was.... His
damn-all-witnesses quasi-lie suggests he did something more than just
toss the hulls back down....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Agree with at least the latter half here, especially since it's
apparent that Baker & Truly ran into Oswald near the *front door*,
according to both initial news reports & Baker's last summary of the
incident....
dw
yeuhd
> The timing DOES NOT WORK.
> Nor does the shooting of the deformed left hand scope- ikmpaired rifle in
> the time required by the Zapruder film. That's it.
That's not it.
There is no such thing as a left hand scope. The scope on the Carcano
rifle has to be mounted on the left side because the bolt action
occurs on the right side. It has nothing to do with the left or right
handedness of the shooter.
The FBI found that the minimum time for a person to fire two
"successive, well-aimed" shots with Oswald's Carcano was 2.25 seconds
using the telescopic sight. The HSCA found that using the open iron
sights (the faster and more accurate choice for a gunman firing less
than 100 yards, and JFK was 88 yards from the sniper's window at
Z-313), the minimum time was 1.66 seconds between shots.
By Z-224, President Kennedy was clearly reacting to being shot, and
Z-313 obviously shows the fatal head shot. That's a span of 309
frames, or 4.9 seconds. Oswald not only had enough time to reload,
aim, and fire — he could have done it twice, with or without the
scope.
The telescopic sight had been damaged by the time it was received at
FBI headquarters in Washington. When it was damaged and how is not
known. It may have happened as Oswald stashed the rifle as he fled the
sixth floor. We just don't know.
Anthony Marsh
I also do not think it was Oswald shooting, but your reasoning is flawed.
Someone could get down to the 2nd floor in 90 seconds. The shooter was no
caught on the 6th floor or roof.
> Focus on the simple stuff folks. It's obvious. The timing DOES NOT WORK.
> Nor does the shooting of the deformed left hand scope- ikmpaired rifle in
> the time required by the Zapruder film. That's it.
>
The scope was not deformed. It was damaged, but that could have happened
after the shooting. And the shooter might make better shots with the iron
sights instead of the scope. And it was not a left handed scope. You are
regurgitating a lot of old myths.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 11, 5:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> You can't (corrected for typo) expect to always find blood on a bullet.
> In many cases no blood if found on the bullets when they are rifle bullets
> which have perforated the victim. Depending on where it hits it may hit
> only muscle and never touch blood. By the time the wound starts to bleed
> the bullet is long gone.
Any chance you'll learn to quote correctly?
> We can get expert opinions on the likelihood, I need to check what
We already have the expert opinions, from the top forensic pathologists
in the world.
> Weisberg said about this. Weisberg points out, as I recall, that blood is
> not the only identifiably human matter that will attach itself to a
You can try to find out what Weisberg said, but he was not a forensic
pathologist.
> penetrating bullet. I can state as a fact that there is no blood or human
> tissue on the limo fragments or CE399.
>
Wonderful. Not now, today. But you can't state it as a fact for the time
when they were found.
> A.M One of the fragments was found embedded in the front seat cushion.
>
> Perhaps you could explain why "embedding" something in a cushion would
> require an injection?
>
Hard to fire a fragment like that directly into the seat cushion.
> In any homicide investigation, it is prudent to examine each piece of
> evidence in the most minute detail.
>
Ya think? Which explains why they threw away all the parts of the limo?
> DO you agree with that general proposition?
>
They were guilt of destruction of evidence.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/bestwitn.htm
> A.M. If you start going down this road you can claim that all the
> evidence is fake and then we get nowhere.
>
> When you run out of supporting evidence, put words in your opponents'
> mouth? ,
>
I did not put words in your mouth. I gave you a caveat.
I have seen lots of people go down that road.
> A.M. s, the chrome topping was undamaged before the shooting and then when
> examined by the FBI a few hours later there was a dent.
>
> Aye, but who or what made the dent, and when was it made?
The tip of a M-C bullet. Most likely the nose fragment found in the
front seat compartment.
> It is not difficult to put a dent in chrome with simple tools.
>
As I warned you are going down that road. Now you claim the dent was made
artificially. So, let me put some words in your mouth. Your theory is that
just after the shooting Greer reached up with his ball peen hammer and
made the dent and no one noticed him doing that? The dent was not there
immediately before the shooting and was there immediately after the
shooting. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a bullet
fragment caused the dent? And those two fragments found in the front seat
compartment could only have gotten there by hitting some limo part above
and in front of the front seat. So unless you can find another point of
damage for me, the dent of the chrome topping is the source of the two
large fragments.
> A.M The two large fragments could only have gotten there by ricocheting
> off the limo parts.
>
> Who says?
>
I say.
> A.M. They can't magically fall into those specific locations.
>
> They can be placed there, by human hand (gloved, of course)
>
Ridiculous.
>
>
> A.M. Acoustics is not junk science.
>
> THe tests done by the HSCA experts were proven to be junk science by the
> National academy of science. The flaw in their methodology was pointed out
> to the academy by Steve Barber. Just like Dr. GUinn,with his CABLA CADABLA
> bullet comparisons, the HSCA accoustics experts , were relying on useless
> data.
>
Wrong. The NAS made several mistakes in its critique.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/acoustic.htm
> Relying on useless data is one of the hallmarks of junk science.
>
There is nothing wrong with the data. You just have to make sure that
you apply to correct method to analyze it.
> My posts on this forum refer to the JFK assassination. You will find it
> easier to clarify the facts of THIS case if you refrain from importing
> facts from other cases in which there is no valid analogy. .
>
You made a flat statement that acoustics is junk science. That is wrong.
It was proven accurate in another case and is used all the time now.
geovu...@gmail.com
Isn't there a double standard being applied here? It's O.K. to use their
testimony regarding opening the window as your main reason for believing a
coverup yet their testimony regarding the sounds of gunfire over their
head cannot be counted upon. My biggest problem is that you used some of
the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
information that should be included. Omitting the remainder of their
testimony looks like a dodge. I guess it really doesn't matter because
your claim is that their testimony is willingly false anyway.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 12, 12:04 am, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The timing DOES NOT WORK.
>> Nor does the shooting of the deformed left hand scope- ikmpaired rifle in
>> the time required by the Zapruder film. That's it.
>
> That's not it.
>
> There is no such thing as a left hand scope. The scope on the Carcano
> rifle has to be mounted on the left side because the bolt action
> occurs on the right side. It has nothing to do with the left or right
> handedness of the shooter.
>
Well, almost. The location of the bolt depends on where the ejection
port is. On almost all military bolt-action rifles the ejection port is
on the right side. A few fancy civilians rifles are made for lefties.
Oswald learned to shoot right handed in the Marines.
> The FBI found that the minimum time for a person to fire two
> "successive, well-aimed" shots with Oswald's Carcano was 2.25 seconds
> using the telescopic sight. The HSCA found that using the open iron
> sights (the faster and more accurate choice for a gunman firing less
> than 100 yards, and JFK was 88 yards from the sniper's window at
> Z-313), the minimum time was 1.66 seconds between shots.
>
Subtext missing here. The HSCA only found that because they needed to
have Oswald fire two shots within 1.66 seconds to comply with the
results of the acoustical analysis. This minimum time was done without
ANY aiming whatsoever. Later Ayoob's buddies were able to aim and reload
two shots within 1.66 seconds.
> By Z-224, President Kennedy was clearly reacting to being shot, and
Clearly by Z-224 Kennedy had already been hit several frames earlier.
See Dr. McCarthy's testimony.
> Z-313 obviously shows the fatal head shot. That's a span of 309
> frames, or 4.9 seconds. Oswald not only had enough time to reload,
> aim, and fire — he could have done it twice, with or without the
> scope.
>
I think almost anyone could get off two shots within 4.9 seconds. That
was NEVER a problem, NEVER an issue. The problem was assuming the first
shot hit at Z-210 (earliest possible frame), then a second shot, then
the third shot at Z-313. Assuming perfectly even spacing that gives the
reload time of 2.8 seconds. Not impossible, but then the doctors said
that Governor Connally was not in position to get all his wounds at any
frame after Z-240. So the new timing problem became two shots within 30
frames. Specter thought 1.6 seconds was impossible, so his only solution
was HIS Single Bullet Theory.
The HSCA sidestepped part of this problem by moving its SBT earlier
(Z-190), due to their reluctance to match the grassy knoll shot with the
head shot. Strangely enough, Don Thomas's interpretation places a shot
at Z-224.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, as I said before, investigating cops often make mistakes. But the
cartridge, plural, were not found under window #1.
> The ejection port would send them flying a few
>> feet farther down. In addition, some klutzy cop picked up the shells to
>> look at them and then threw them down in a slightly different location.
>>
> You mean Capn Fritz. I guess he didn't know it would be a rather
> important homicide. The onlookers who reported this, however, tended
> to say that Fritz *pocketed* the shells rather than just threw them
> down again. In fact, we can't say exactly what was done with them,
He may have pocketed them, but then threw them down when he realized his
error.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rICdnfQm-Yqd51fV...@comcast.com...
Marsh wrote;
> The scope was not deformed. It was damaged, but that could have happened
> after the shooting. And the shooter might make better shots with the iron
> sights instead of the scope. And it was not a left handed scope. You are
> regurgitating a lot of old myths.
I write;
That "old myth" comes from volume XXV page 799.
Marsh Misses Another One! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Sep 9, 11:35 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 2:39 pm, geovult...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 7, 11:35 pm, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 7, 6:47 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > There Was No Shooter on the 6th Floor
>
> > > > > The acoustical evidence proves that three shots were fired from the
> > > > > sniper's nest.
>
> > > > > Actually the acoustical evidence was discredited years ago. There are
> > > > > NO gunshots on the tape and NO acoustical evidence of shots from
> > > > > ANYWHERE.
>
> > > > > We do know there were shots from SOMEWHERE, but evidence of where the
> > > > > shots came from must be adduced from sources other than the so-called
> > > > > acoustic experts. There is no PROOF that any shots were fired from the
> > > > > sixth floor. The best we can say is that there is SOME evidence pro
> > > > > and con.
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > felt dust fall from directly above them as the shots occurred and heard
> > > the casings hitting the floor important missing information here? It's
> > > suprising that you would leave that out as evidence of a sixth floor
>
> > I use their testimony in conjunction with photographic evidence which
> > contradicts their testimony. The fact that an open window was waiting
> > for Jarman to say *he* opened it--after the shooting, when it was
> > already open *before*--means that the three did not just happen to go
> > to the 5th floor. They were there to make it seem as if there was
> > someone on the 6th floor.
>
> > It's not a fact that the three heard shots etc. It's just their
> > testimony, & it changed from statement to statement. The dust/debris
> > was originally said to have landed on *Norman* (in both Jarman &
> > Norman's initial FBI statements); by the time of the hearings, it was
> > landing on *Williams*. Amazing detouring debris! And Barb J has
> > noted that Norman failed to even mention casings/clicks until about 8
> > days after 11/22.
> > dw
>
> Isn't there a double standard being applied here? It's O.K. to use their
> testimony regarding opening the window as your main reason for believing a
> coverup yet their testimony regarding the sounds of gunfire over their
> head cannot be counted upon.
Actually, if you look closely here, I'm consistent--you can't count on
them re window or gunfire! They didn't open it. They didn't hear it.
My biggest problem is that you used some of
> the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
> discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
> information that should be included.
That's the whole idea. They were "important witnesses" because they said
many things which suggested, falsely, that there was a shooter above them.
One: debris which fell on one of them. But, hilariously, the early FBI
interviews with both Jarman & Norman had the debris falling on *Norman*.
The later WC testimony had it falling on *Williams*. Two: the sounds of a
rifle & falling hulls. As Barb J was 1st to point out here, Norman failed
to mention this for about 9 days. It almost looks as if Williams was
voted to receive the debris at the same time that Norman was voted to hear
the rifle/hull sounds, & so was not unhappy to give up the debris. I'm
exaggerating, but there was a switch here, after the 1st week, as if these
were malleable details of a story being written.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
"Error"? And his affidavit suggesting that he did not handle the hulls at
all was also an error? This is an important matter which was not fully
followed up on, as also the transmission re "38 auto" hulls, which Sgt
Hill denied sending, then later admitted he did send. There was never a
determination that Fritz's action was a simple error....
dw
Ray
A.M. We already have the expert opinions, from the top forensic
pathologists in the world.
Ray: Please name a few of these pathologists and tell us how they explain
how CE 399 could have penetrated two human bodies and left no trace of
human tissue in the knarls and grooves on the bullet, or how the two
fragments sliced through JFK's brain and emerged untouched by human brain
tissue?
Ray: I can state as a fact that there is no blood or human
tissue on the limo fragments or CE399.
A.M. Wonderful. Not now, today. But you can't state it as a fact for the
time when they were found.
Yes I most certainly CAN, and you cannot prove me wrong. There was never
any evidence in existence, other than a series of assumptions, that these
3 pieces of evidence NOT ONE OF WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
had ever been in contact with human flesh or human blood.
A.M.version 1: the chrome topping was undamaged before the shooting and
then when examined by the FBI a few hours later there was a dent.
A.M. version 2: The dent was not there immediately before the shooting
and was there immediately after the shooting.
GEE AIN'T IT FUNNY HOW TIME SLIPS AWAY
FIrst it was A FEW HOURS AFTER, then it is IMMEDIATELY AFTER.
Where did those FEW HOURS go, and who went with them??
Anthony Marsh
No, that is a CYA.
> followed up on, as also the transmission re "38 auto" hulls, which Sgt
> Hill denied sending, then later admitted he did send. There was never a
> determination that Fritz's action was a simple error....
>
Cops make simple errors all the time. Contaminating crime scenes.
> dw
Anthony Marsh
That is ridiculous. Their window was already open as we can see in the
Hughes film. It is impossible that they did not hear the shots coming from
less than 10 feet above them.
> My biggest problem is that you used some of
>> the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
>> discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
>> information that should be included.
>
> That's the whole idea. They were "important witnesses" because they said
> many things which suggested, falsely, that there was a shooter above them.
> One: debris which fell on one of them. But, hilariously, the early FBI
> interviews with both Jarman & Norman had the debris falling on *Norman*.
> The later WC testimony had it falling on *Williams*. Two: the sounds of a
> rifle & falling hulls. As Barb J was 1st to point out here, Norman failed
> to mention this for about 9 days. It almost looks as if Williams was
> voted to receive the debris at the same time that Norman was voted to hear
> the rifle/hull sounds, & so was not unhappy to give up the debris. I'm
> exaggerating, but there was a switch here, after the 1st week, as if these
> were malleable details of a story being written.
>
I don't know how to explain this to you, but sometimes a witness will
bring up something in a later questioning which he did not think to bring
up in his first questioning. And maybe he wasn't asked the first time so
he did not volunteer it.
> dw
>
Anthony Marsh
They never said it was a left-handed scope or that the rifle was set up
for a left-hander.
Anthony Marsh
There is no contradiction in using the sound parts of someone's testimony
and discounting the bad parts of the same person's testimony.
> head cannot be counted upon. My biggest problem is that you used some of
> the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
> discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
> information that should be included. Omitting the remainder of their
Just because a witness reported seeing the shooter does not mean they saw
the right person or can remember what the person looks like. I have no
doubt that Euins saw someone and heard the shots. But I am sure the
shooter was not a black man.
> testimony looks like a dodge. I guess it really doesn't matter because
> your claim is that their testimony is willingly false anyway.
>
Some parts may just be dead wrong.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ah! But Fritz contaminated big, contaminating the Crime Scene of the
Century! And Fritz's quasi-lying affidavit made sure his actions could
not be dismissed as "simple error", or, yes, on the other hand, embraced
as deliberate malfeasance.... At the least, we have no photos, Crime Lab
or otherwise, of the hulls as they lay before being touched by human
hands....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Let me amend that--they did not hear the shots coming from less than 10
feet above them. They heard them coming from somewhere else.... They were
being used to *create* proof of a shooter above them.
dw
>
>
> > My biggest problem is that you used some of
> >> the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
> >> discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
> >> information that should be included.
>
> > That's the whole idea. They were "important witnesses" because they said
> > many things which suggested, falsely, that there was a shooter above them.
> > One: debris which fell on one of them. But, hilariously, the early FBI
> > interviews with both Jarman & Norman had the debris falling on *Norman*.
> > The later WC testimony had it falling on *Williams*. Two: the sounds of a
> > rifle & falling hulls. As Barb J was 1st to point out here, Norman failed
> > to mention this for about 9 days. It almost looks as if Williams was
> > voted to receive the debris at the same time that Norman was voted to hear
> > the rifle/hull sounds, & so was not unhappy to give up the debris. I'm
> > exaggerating, but there was a switch here, after the 1st week, as if these
> > were malleable details of a story being written.
>
> I don't know how to explain this to you, but sometimes a witness will
> bring up something in a later questioning which he did not think to bring
> up in his first questioning. And maybe he wasn't asked the first time so
> he did not volunteer it.
Misses the point of my point. Norman & Jarman both told the FBI that the
gunk fell on Norman, in their respective interviews that Sunday & Tuesday.
By the time of the hearings, nothing is falling on Norman, & the gunk is
now falling on Williams. The Magic Gunk!
As for Barb J's point--yes, maybe Norman uh forgot to say, or volunteer
the info re the rifle that first week-plus, but he invariably mentioned it
every time he was interviewed *after* that SS interview!
>
> > dw
>
>
Anthony Marsh
So what if they made up stories and changed their stories? That does not
change the fact that they were there on the fifth floor and heard the
shots.
Anthony Marsh
But we could have if Alyea's film had not been thrown away.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Again--their changing stories mean that, yes, they heard the shots, but we
do not know where the shots were coming from--probably not from above
them.
Anthony Marsh
It is not proof. It is a clue. Where to look. The fact that they THOUGHT
the shots had come from above them.
geovu...@gmail.com
There is no contradiction as long as you decide which parts are good and
which parts are bad? That's a fairly egocentric statement and a near
definition of a bias. I suppose that you are the great "decider"
regarding what testimony is good and what testimony is bad.
I don't know if you are siding with the poster or not on this. You may
just be arguing for arguments sake. Do you believe that the men on the
fifth floor heard the shots over their heads? I know that you believe
that there were shots fired from the sixth floor. If this is true, do you
feel that omitting that part of their statement from the argument is
simply "discounting the bad parts of their testimony"?
>
> > head cannot be counted upon. My biggest problem is that you used some of
> > the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
> > discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
> > information that should be included. Omitting the remainder of their
>
> Just because a witness reported seeing the shooter does not mean they saw
> the right person or can remember what the person looks like. I have no
> doubt that Euins saw someone and heard the shots. But I am sure the
> shooter was not a black man.
So, in that sense, it would be just as logical for me to say that I have
no doubt that the men on the fifth floor heard the shots, but it is
possible that they may not have opened the window.
>
> > testimony looks like a dodge. I guess it really doesn't matter because
> > your claim is that their testimony is willingly false anyway.
>
> Some parts may just be dead wrong.- Hide quoted text -
But in this particular case, would you suggest that the 5th floor
witnesses did not hear the gunfire above their heads?
dcwi...@netscape.net
Or, rather, the fact that they were told to *say* they thought the
shots had come from above them. Just as one was told, belatedly, to
say he heard clicking & dropping sounds, and another was told to say
he was hit by debris, tho the latter originally was directed to hit
the clicking & dropping stooge....
dw
Anthony Marsh
That is an age-old problem in any research.
> definition of a bias. I suppose that you are the great "decider"
> regarding what testimony is good and what testimony is bad.
>
Why yes, yes I am.
> I don't know if you are siding with the poster or not on this. You may
Siding with? That seems all important to you. Someone can be correct in a
conclusion but wrong about some facts.
> just be arguing for arguments sake. Do you believe that the men on the
I like the idea that you think correcting errors is only arguing for the
sake of arguing. You'd prefer no dissent and continue to spread the old
myths.
> fifth floor heard the shots over their heads? I know that you believe
This is hard to explain, but given all the evidence it would be
impossible for them NOT to hear the shots.
> that there were shots fired from the sixth floor. If this is true, do you
> feel that omitting that part of their statement from the argument is
> simply "discounting the bad parts of their testimony"?
>
I think it is important to dismiss the illogical or impossible portions of
someone's testimony. If I read a SS agent's testimony and he says that the
motorcade went up Houston and then turned RIGHT onto Elm, I feel justified
in dismissing it as a simple mistake rather than postulating that all the
photographic evidence showing it turned LEFT was faked.
>
>>> head cannot be counted upon. My biggest problem is that you used some of
>>> the most important witnesses in regards to locating a shooter in order to
>>> discount the location of a shooter that they reported. That's important
>>> information that should be included. Omitting the remainder of their
>> Just because a witness reported seeing the shooter does not mean they saw
>> the right person or can remember what the person looks like. I have no
>> doubt that Euins saw someone and heard the shots. But I am sure the
>> shooter was not a black man.
>
> So, in that sense, it would be just as logical for me to say that I have
> no doubt that the men on the fifth floor heard the shots, but it is
> possible that they may not have opened the window.
>
Opened what window when? They may be telescoping memory as Loftus points
out often happens with witnesses.
Did Jean Hill really see a dog in the back seat of the limo?
>>> testimony looks like a dodge. I guess it really doesn't matter because
>>> your claim is that their testimony is willingly false anyway.
>> Some parts may just be dead wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> But in this particular case, would you suggest that the 5th floor
> witnesses did not hear the gunfire above their heads?
>
Suggest? Never. I might suggest that some witnesses in some locations did
not clearly hear all the shots. For example, Connally could not hear the
shot which hit him.
dcwi...@netscape.net
But isn't it interesting that the photographic evidence which would easily
have *corrected* their teleporting memories was suppressed for three
decades!
dw
Ray
to this post on September 13:
On Sep 12, 9:58 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
A.M. We already have the expert opinions, from the top forensic
pathologists in the world.
Ray: Please name a few of these pathologists and tell us how they explain
how CE 399 could have penetrated two human bodies and left no trace of
human tissue in the knarls and grooves on the bullet, or how the two
fragments sliced through JFK's brain and emerged untouched by human brain
tissue?
Ray: I can state as a fact that there is no blood or human tissue on the
limo fragments or CE399.
A.M. Wonderful. Not now, today. But you can't state it as a fact for the
time when they were found.
Yes I most certainly CAN, and you cannot prove me wrong. There was never
any evidence in existence, other than a series of assumptions, that these
3 pieces of evidence NOT ONE OF WHICH WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME
had ever been in contact with human flesh or human blood.
A.M.version 1: the chrome topping was undamaged before the shooting and
then when examined by the FBI a few hours later there was a dent.
A.M. version 2: The dent was not there immediately before the shooting