Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Harold Weisberg
43 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
May 10, 2012, 9:09:45 AM5/10/12
to
HAROLD WEISBERG:
TOP-NOTCH RESEARCHER?
OR JUST ANOTHER ANYBODY-BUT-OSWALD CONSPIRACY NUT?
By David Von Pein
---------------------------------
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
The audio clip that can be found at the webpage above was taken from a
radio interview in the 1980s featuring famous JFK assassination
researcher Harold Weisberg. And it's a clip that should make any
reasonable person have serious doubts about the accuracy of anything
else Mr. Weisberg had to say concerning the assassination of President
Kennedy, because it's a clip that has Weisberg saying something so
incredibly silly and provably incorrect that you'd almost have to ask
yourself this question after hearing Weisberg make such a stupid
claim: Is Weisberg really talking about the JFK case here, or is he
referring to some other case entirely?
Here's what Harold Weisberg said:
"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I
have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
one way or another."
Now I know that the late Mr. Weisberg is considered by many JFK
conspiracy theorists to be one of the "deans" among the first
generation of Warren Commission critics, with many people propping up
Weisberg as the very best of all assassination researchers -- but when
a critic makes statements like the ones I just quoted above, I have to
scratch my head and wonder why on Earth ANYONE would place any faith
in this guy whatsoever and prop him up as some kind of "God" among
researchers?
The part about Weisberg actually believing that NO SHOTS AT ALL were
fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on
11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder
whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for
when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s.
For, the evidence that proves that multiple gunshots were fired from
the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Depository is
not just beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence to prove that fact
has unquestionably been established beyond all possible doubt. And
even most conspiracy theorists will acknowledge that some shots were,
indeed, fired from the sixth floor.
Only a person who wants to ignore or deliberately mangle and
misrepresent ALL of the following physical evidence and eyewitnesses
can possibly believe that no shots at all came from the sixth floor of
the TSBD:
1.) The first-day (11/22/63) interviews and affidavits and statements
from several eyewitnesses, in which various witnesses told their story
about having seen a gunman (or a gun) in the southeast window on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository.
These witnesses include: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson,
and Mal Couch (and a couple of others). And most (if not all) of these
people told their eyewitness accounts within literally hours of the
shooting (or even less), either via written affidavits that they
filled out at the Dallas Sheriff's Department, or by way of live radio
interviews, such as WFAA-TV cameraman Mal Couch's live report that was
broadcast on WFAA-Radio very shortly after the assassination on
11/22/63 (which can be heard below).
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
The above Mal Couch interview, all by itself, totally destroys
Weisberg's fantasy (or anyone else's similar fantasy theory) about NO
SHOTS coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Couch's statement on live Dallas radio on the very day of the
assassination has Couch confirming (for all time) that he actually saw
a rifle being pulled in from an upper floor of the TSBD.
Couch said it was the "fifth or sixth floor" of the Depository, and he
also said this: "There were people underneath the rifle, who looked up
to see where the shots had come from."
And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle
protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he
saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is
confirmed by
Tom Dillard's photograph.
Therefore, in order to believe (as Weisberg believed) that no shots
were fired from the sixth floor at all, you'd have to believe in one
of these two things (both of which stretch reasonable thinking to the
breaking point):
Mal Couch was either a liar or was mistaken when he said that he saw a
rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window.
Or:
The person who was sticking a rifle out of the sixth-floor window was
not really using his rifle as an assassination weapon that day -- the
gunman was merely pointing it out the window as a prop or just for
"show", but he didn't really fire any shots with that rifle.
Both of the options above, of course, are just plain silly.
2.) Three spent shells from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle were found underneath the sixth-floor window -- i.e., underneath
the very same window that eyewitnesses said they saw a rifle
protruding from.
3.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle was also found on the same sixth
floor. And it was proven that that exact Carcano rifle of Oswald's was
the weapon that fired bullets at JFK, via the fact (among other
things) that bullet fragments from that exact gun were found in the
front seat of the limousine. (Did Mr. Weisberg really think that
bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 were planted in the President's car
in order to frame Oswald?)
4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in
particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the
shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases
hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a liar too?)
In the face of all of this evidence, Harold Weisberg (who knew this
case like the back of his hand) actually had the nerve to utter this
statement on a San Francisco radio station:
"I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I
have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
one way or another."
There's only one additional thing that needs to be said here:
Un-be-liev-able.
David Von Pein
October 6, 2011
Ace Kefford
May 10, 2012, 1:39:02 PM5/10/12
to
Good work.
Harold Weisberg is definitely a tough case. He worked very hard to get
evidence from the government. He was not hesitant to point out the
foolishness of other researchers. But he could also get locked on a point
and not let it go no matter how much his position was undercut by further
research or other evidence. And my god could he make a mountain out of a
molehill? For example, seizing on a misstatement in a governmental
document as evidence of conspiracy, cover-up, fraud, lying, etc., rather
than just accepting as any sensible person would that it was a mistake.
I assess him as sincere -- although with a leftist bias -- but too often
his positions calcified and he vastly overstated what various documents
"proved".
Still, interesting (although frustrating) to read.
Ace
Anthony Marsh
May 10, 2012, 1:42:45 PM5/10/12
to
DVP and the other disinformationists do it hundreds of times before and to
other researchers. The fact is that NO ONE relies on any particular
researcher and and believers everything that researcher says. Maybe the
researcher is correct about one thing and wrong about another. That is
what happens in the real world. Maybe Einstein is right about one thing
and justly worshipped by all, but wrong about another thing. Even Stephen
Hawking has admitted that he was wrong about something. But that's not
good enough for the disinformationists. They have a double standard. It's
ok when they are wrong, but conspiracy believers must prove that they are
100% right or everything they say is wrong.
> The part about Weisberg actually believing that NO SHOTS AT ALL were
> fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on
> 11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder
> whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for
> when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s.
>
were fired from the sniper's nest.
fired by THAT rifle? We need to examine witness statements critically.
Just recently the photographic evidence proved that Amos Euins was lying
about seeing the rifle in the window.
> Therefore, in order to believe (as Weisberg believed) that no shots
> were fired from the sixth floor at all, you'd have to believe in one
> of these two things (both of which stretch reasonable thinking to the
> breaking point):
>
> Mal Couch was either a liar or was mistaken when he said that he saw a
> rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window.
>
Couch can be telling the truth about seeing a rifle in the window.
That is not proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination.
That is what the acoustical analysis proved.
> Or:
>
> The person who was sticking a rifle out of the sixth-floor window was
> not really using his rifle as an assassination weapon that day -- the
> gunman was merely pointing it out the window as a prop or just for
> "show", but he didn't really fire any shots with that rifle.
>
> Both of the options above, of course, are just plain silly.
>
> 2.) Three spent shells from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
> rifle were found underneath the sixth-floor window -- i.e., underneath
> the very same window that eyewitnesses said they saw a rifle
> protruding from.
>
acoustical evidence proves.
> 3.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle was also found on the same sixth
> floor. And it was proven that that exact Carcano rifle of Oswald's was
> the weapon that fired bullets at JFK, via the fact (among other
> things) that bullet fragments from that exact gun were found in the
> front seat of the limousine. (Did Mr. Weisberg really think that
> bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 were planted in the President's car
> in order to frame Oswald?)
>
conspiracists can argue that the real fragments were made to disappear and
be replaced by premade Carcano fragments. John Hunt has suggested that
Frazier tampered with and falsified ballistic evidence.
> 4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in
> particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the
> shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases
> hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a liar too?)
>
the last cartridge. Norman did not include a CLICK-CLICK at the end of the
sequence.
> In the face of all of this evidence, Harold Weisberg (who knew this
> case like the back of his hand) actually had the nerve to utter this
> statement on a San Francisco radio station:
>
> "I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I
> have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
> floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
> one way or another."
>
window shooting.
> There's only one additional thing that needs to be said here:
>
> Un-be-liev-able.
>
> David Von Pein
> October 6, 2011
>
Typical WC defender attack on ALL conspiracy believers.
pjsp...@aol.com
May 10, 2012, 1:43:44 PM5/10/12
to
David, people respect Weisberg for reasons other than you imagine. Few
theorists swear by his every word. Most of his contemporaries got on his
bad side at one time or another. The reason he is so respected is simple.
1) He repeatedly sued the government, and forced the release of over a
hundred thousand pages of information previously withheld. 2) He shared
those documents with other researchers. 3) He continued to write and
research long after it was clear he'd make no money from it, and long
after his health was in decline.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 10, 2012, 3:40:23 PM5/10/12
to
how he got involved in the JFK assassination.
Two things stuck with me from the preface:
1. He admitted he made up his mind on 11/24/63 that there was a conspiracy
when he saw Oswald shot on TV. He decided then-and-there, he said, that it
had to be a conspiracy, and Oswald was being silenced.
2. He also admitted he needed a new source of income, because his goose
farm was shutting down.
So he made up his mind without seeing any evidence (talk about a "rush to
judgment"*), and he wrote the books for the money.
Hank
_________
*Yeah, I know that's the title of Mark Lane's book, not Weisberg's.
David Von Pein
May 10, 2012, 10:14:45 PM5/10/12
to
>>> "Couch saw something in that window, but did he SEE the shots being
fired by THAT rifle?" <<<
all:
1.) Sniper fires from SE corner window on 6th floor of TSBD.
2.) Shells beneath SE corner window came from LHO's gun.
3.) Bullet fragments from LHO's gun are found in JFK's limo.
4.) LHO's gun is found on the 6th floor.
5.) Mal Couch sees rifle in SE corner window.
6.) Bob Jackson sees rifle in SE corner window.
7.) Amos Euins sees "pipe" in SE corner window.
8.) Howard Brennan sees man firing rifle from SE corner window.
Via the above batch of stuff, do you still really believe that Mr. Couch
didn't see "THAT rifle" being pulled back into the Sniper's Nest window?
And after glancing at the above eight items for a second time, does any
reasonable and sensible person really think that the following quote from
Harold Weisberg is a legitimate, fair, and correct statement?:
"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the
Even if you want to throw out ALL of the physical rifle evidence (bullet
shells, bullets, bullet fragments, and Rifle C2766), the above quote by
Weisberg is totally nutty.
Why?
Because of numbers 5 through 8 listed above.
David Von Pein
May 10, 2012, 11:49:04 PM5/10/12
to
Switching gears (a little):
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#entry251778
Jim DiEugenio said:
"I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
reenactments."
DVP said:
Great! Another fake picture!
DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than
the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it
doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in
order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However
much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the conspiracy
clowns).
Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe
CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer).
You guys are truly hysterical.
HistorianDetective
May 11, 2012, 9:15:03 AM5/11/12
to
On May 10, 2:40 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
RE:
> So he made up his mind without seeing any evidence (talk about a "rush to
> judgment"*), and he wrote the books for the money.
>
> Hank
Not sold on your "he wrote the books for the money."
In reality, both he and James Lesar lost money in their efforts to
obtain various documents via their FOIA court battles.
As far as his books? 10-1 he made less than minimum wage, if any money
at all.
JM/HD
> So he made up his mind without seeing any evidence (talk about a "rush to
> judgment"*), and he wrote the books for the money.
>
> Hank
In reality, both he and James Lesar lost money in their efforts to
obtain various documents via their FOIA court battles.
As far as his books? 10-1 he made less than minimum wage, if any money
at all.
JM/HD
Ace Kefford
May 11, 2012, 9:15:59 AM5/11/12
to
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#ent...
Yes, re-goddamn-diculous! Unfortunately too many "researchers" who
start out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter
too many contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order
to preserve their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
start out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter
too many contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order
to preserve their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
bigdog
May 11, 2012, 1:25:51 PM5/11/12
to
doubts Oswald was the shooter that killed JFK. The physical evidence of
that is absolutely overwhelming. If someone wants to argue for a
conspiracy built around the belief that he had accomplices or even a
second shooter on the GK, that at least falls under the category of
theorectical possibility even though there is no compelling evidence of
such. But to think that Oswald did not bring his MC rifle to the TSBD that
day and fired the shots that killed JFK is just plain silly. Anybody who
won't accept that should simply be dismissed.
John Fiorentino
May 11, 2012, 1:26:25 PM5/11/12
to
When Weisberg's Goose farm shut down, he realized he could make much more
money by "goosing" the public.
Weisberg, (as did other critics) made a living off of the death of JFK.
The value of Weisberg's lawsuits was far outweighed by his duplicity.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d341dbdf-4889-4fbb...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
money by "goosing" the public.
Weisberg, (as did other critics) made a living off of the death of JFK.
The value of Weisberg's lawsuits was far outweighed by his duplicity.
John F.
"HistorianDetective" <historian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d341dbdf-4889-4fbb...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
May 11, 2012, 3:43:33 PM5/11/12
to
On 5/11/2012 9:15 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On May 10, 11:49 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Switching gears (a little):
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#ent...
>>
>> Jim DiEugenio said:
>>
>> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
>> reenactments."
>>
>> DVP said:
>>
>> Great! Another fake picture!
>>
>> DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman,& Williams to be somewhere other than
> On May 10, 11:49 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Switching gears (a little):
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#ent...
>>
>> Jim DiEugenio said:
>>
>> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
>> reenactments."
>>
>> DVP said:
>>
>> Great! Another fake picture!
>>
>> the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
>> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
>> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>>
>> As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it
>> doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in
>> order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However
>> much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the conspiracy
>> clowns).
>>
>> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
>> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>>
>> There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe
>> CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer).
>>
>> You guys are truly hysterical.
>
> Yes, re-goddamn-diculous! Unfortunately too many "researchers" who
> start out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter
> too many contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order
> to preserve their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
>
In case you didn't know it, I am the conspiracy researcher who proved
>> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
>> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>>
>> As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it
>> doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in
>> order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However
>> much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the conspiracy
>> clowns).
>>
>> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
>> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>>
>> There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe
>> CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer).
>>
>> You guys are truly hysterical.
>
> Yes, re-goddamn-diculous! Unfortunately too many "researchers" who
> start out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter
> too many contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order
> to preserve their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
>
that the Zapruder film is authentic. Now, which film or photo have I
ever claimed is fake?
But I am not afraid to call WC defenders or conspiracy believers or
witnesses liars when they have lied. And I prove it.
Don't believe liars.
Has there been destruction of evidence? Yes and I have documented it.
Maybe you think the government has the inherent right to lie and destroy
evidence. If that's your world view, fine. But then don't get all high
and mighty criticizing people.
Anthony Marsh
May 11, 2012, 8:26:55 PM5/11/12
to
this InterNet thingy and learned Usenet protocols for quoting messages.
So I have to study your messages for hours trying to figure out just WTF
you are babbling about.
Let me repeat this in case you haven't seen it the first 1,821,827 times
I have said it. Never rely on witnesses.
I point out that you should look for scientific evidence. So I cite the
acoustical evidence which proved that three shots were fired from the
sniper's nest. And you throw it out because you say that Euins saw a
black man shooting from that window.
And don't ask me to defend every wrong thing that everyone has ever said.
I don't ask you to defend every stupid thing that McAdams has ever said.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 11, 2012, 8:33:15 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 9:15 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I refer you to Weisberg, who said he wrote the book for the income to
replace that lost when his goose farm closed down. You want to argue with
him over it, not me. He said it. I just pointed it out he said it.
And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's Carousel
Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the assassination, I
understand. But that doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money. And
Weisberg was in the book-writing business for the same reason.
He admitted as much.
Hank
wrote:
replace that lost when his goose farm closed down. You want to argue with
him over it, not me. He said it. I just pointed it out he said it.
And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's Carousel
Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the assassination, I
understand. But that doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money. And
Weisberg was in the book-writing business for the same reason.
He admitted as much.
Hank
David Von Pein
May 11, 2012, 10:36:41 PM5/11/12
to
ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "I guess you're trying to reply to me, but you still haven't figured
out this InterNet thingy and learned Usenet protocols for quoting
messages." <<<
I couldn't care less about "Usenet protocols". I format my messages the
way I want to -- mainly for my own files and archiving. I'll enjoy
revisiting the silly things you conspiracy theorists have said to me in
the year 2032.
And I don't like Usenet's formatting. So I elect to delete everything
after hitting "Reply", and then start from scratch, focusing on just the
part of a post I'm replying to (and eliminating all the junk I don't
need).
And I put your name ("Tony") in the first line of my response (the one you
said it took you "hours" to "figure out").
How many Tonys post on this board?
>>> "Never rely on witnesses." <<<
Tony Marsh tells us to never rely on any witnesses--ever. Which means, if
we were to follow such broad and silly advice, we actually are then forced
to give some credence to this idiotic comment uttered by Mr. Weisberg:
"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
floor."
gun (or "pipe") sticking out of the sixth-floor Depository window can a
person like Weisberg feel confident enough to make the absurd statement
quoted above.
So, Tony, should all JFK researchers REALLY just ignore the testimony of
Brennan, Euins, Couch, and Jackson (with respect to each of those persons
saying they definitely saw a gun in the SN window)?
Research
May 12, 2012, 2:45:44 PM5/12/12
to
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7cd08590-e66f-4582...@ns1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
was found on the sixth floor. Couldn't these LNer witnesses count to six?
Surely they had enough education? Even reporters and police referred to
the assassin's window as the fifth floor until Day marched out of the dep
with the rifle. Quite a big mistake for an eyewitness to make. Especially
when all the LNer eyewitnesses made the same mistake. LOL!!!!! Lends a
little doubt in my book?
>
> And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle
> protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he
> saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is
> confirmed by
> Tom Dillard's photograph.
>
until WELL after the shots had stopped. Yes the window was open and the
three commission stooges were in the fifth floor window. But these
witensses RAN to the west end of the building immediately after the shots
were fired. And then returned to the east end for the photo opt. How much
time did thet take?
Their excuse was that they were attracted by all the commotion in the
knoll area. But IF they heard shots from the window directly above their
heads. Why didn't that commotion draw them upstairs? Leads to a little
doubt about the witnesses in MY book!!! Especially when one of them ATE
his lunch inside the assassin's window just moments before the shots were
fired. But the Dallas cowpattie cops could find their ass using both
hands?
Research
May 12, 2012, 2:46:43 PM5/12/12
to
"Ace Kefford" <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:991699d6-96c7-4f81...@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
about the murder of the President of the United States, in broad daylight.
The leader of the superpower of the world. Not some junky lying in the
gutter. Mistakes? HELL YEAH! Hell Yeah!!! Why don't you LNers make a list
of ALL the mistakes the investigators and commissionsers, and experts and
committee members made and let us know how you excuse them away? Looks
like a little rightist bias to me.
It was crucial to have every fact documented. Maybe if there wasn't SOOOO
many "mistakes" we could say they were nuts. But the whole investigation
is corrupt with lies and mistakes. Why don't you try to explain how all
this evidence became "lost or stolen" right out of the national archive?
And why all the detectives and trusted government employess aren't behind
bars? Look at Dealey Plaza today. The signs are gone. The drains were
concreted over, trees were trimmed. Why would the government refiberish
the limo before any investigation was conducted? Just tooo fishy????
Anthony Marsh
May 12, 2012, 10:54:26 PM5/12/12
to
have to walk up to the first floor. The first floor does not have window
panes on the front so when you look at the front of the building the first
floor you see the windows is the second floor, but you call it the first
floor. Then you count up and the sixth floor looks like it should be the
fifth floor.
In some cities the first floor is above the ground floor.
>>
>> And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle
>> protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he
>> saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is
>> confirmed by
>> Tom Dillard's photograph.
>>
>
> I think to much credit is added to the Dillard photo. It was not taken
> until WELL after the shots had stopped. Yes the window was open and the
> three commission stooges were in the fifth floor window. But these
> witensses RAN to the west end of the building immediately after the shots
> were fired. And then returned to the east end for the photo opt. How much
> time did thet take?
>
> Their excuse was that they were attracted by all the commotion in the
> knoll area. But IF they heard shots from the window directly above their
> heads. Why didn't that commotion draw them upstairs? Leads to a little
> doubt about the witnesses in MY book!!! Especially when one of them ATE
> his lunch inside the assassin's window just moments before the shots were
> fired. But the Dallas cowpattie cops could find their ass using both
> hands?
seeing all the people running to the grassy knoll. Maybe they were
cowards. Maybe they were three black men living in the South who knew how
to stay out of trouble.
Research
May 13, 2012, 6:04:20 PM5/13/12
to
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4fab...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 5/10/2012 9:09 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> HAROLD WEISBERG:
>> TOP-NOTCH RESEARCHER?
>> OR JUST ANOTHER ANYBODY-BUT-OSWALD CONSPIRACY NUT?
>> By David Von Pein
>>
>> HAROLD WEISBERG:
>> TOP-NOTCH RESEARCHER?
>> OR JUST ANOTHER ANYBODY-BUT-OSWALD CONSPIRACY NUT?
>> By David Von Pein
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
>> The audio clip that can be found at the webpage above was taken from a
>> radio interview in the 1980s featuring famous JFK assassination
>> researcher Harold Weisberg. And it's a clip that should make any
>> reasonable person have serious doubts about the accuracy of anything
>> else Mr. Weisberg had to say concerning the assassination of President
>> Kennedy, because it's a clip that has Weisberg saying something so
>> incredibly silly and provably incorrect that you'd almost have to ask
>> yourself this question after hearing Weisberg make such a stupid
>> claim: Is Weisberg really talking about the JFK case here, or is he
>> referring to some other case entirely?
>>
>> Here's what Harold Weisberg said:
>>
>> "I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I
>> have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
>> floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
>> one way or another."
>> Now I know that the late Mr. Weisberg is considered by many JFK
>> conspiracy theorists to be one of the "deans" among the first
>> generation of Warren Commission critics, with many people propping up
>> Weisberg as the very best of all assassination researchers -- but when
>> a critic makes statements like the ones I just quoted above, I have to
>> scratch my head and wonder why on Earth ANYONE would place any faith
>> in this guy whatsoever and prop him up as some kind of "God" among
>> researchers?
>> The audio clip that can be found at the webpage above was taken from a
>> radio interview in the 1980s featuring famous JFK assassination
>> researcher Harold Weisberg. And it's a clip that should make any
>> reasonable person have serious doubts about the accuracy of anything
>> else Mr. Weisberg had to say concerning the assassination of President
>> Kennedy, because it's a clip that has Weisberg saying something so
>> incredibly silly and provably incorrect that you'd almost have to ask
>> yourself this question after hearing Weisberg make such a stupid
>> claim: Is Weisberg really talking about the JFK case here, or is he
>> referring to some other case entirely?
>>
>> Here's what Harold Weisberg said:
>>
>> "I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I
>> have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth
>> floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in
>> one way or another."
>> Now I know that the late Mr. Weisberg is considered by many JFK
>> conspiracy theorists to be one of the "deans" among the first
>> generation of Warren Commission critics, with many people propping up
>> Weisberg as the very best of all assassination researchers -- but when
>> a critic makes statements like the ones I just quoted above, I have to
>> scratch my head and wonder why on Earth ANYONE would place any faith
>> in this guy whatsoever and prop him up as some kind of "God" among
>> researchers?
>> The part about Weisberg actually believing that NO SHOTS AT ALL were
>> fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on
>> 11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder
>> whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for
>> when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s.
>
> Especially after the HSCA's acoustical analysis proved that three shots
> were fired from the sniper's nest.
>
Now the LNers want to rely on the accoustical evidence. In other matters
>> fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on
>> 11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder
>> whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for
>> when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s.
>
> Especially after the HSCA's acoustical analysis proved that three shots
> were fired from the sniper's nest.
>
they discount it.
ner window on the sixth floor of the Depository is
>> not just beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence to prove that fact
>> has unquestionably been established beyond all possible doubt. And
>> even most conspiracy theorists will acknowledge that some shots were,
>> indeed, fired from the sixth floor.
have been shot from the rear. But that in itself does not mean that Oswald
pulled the trigger. Or that it came from the sixth floor.
shots at all came from the sixth floor of
>> the TSBD:
>>
>> 1.) The first-day (11/22/63) interviews and affidavits and statements
>> from several eyewitnesses, in which various witnesses told their story
>> about having seen a gunman (or a gun) in the southeast window on the
>> sixth floor of the Book Depository.
>>
>> These witnesses include: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson,
>> and Mal Couch (and a couple of others). And most (if not all) of these
>> people told their eyewitness accounts within literally hours of the
>> shooting (or even less), either via written affidavits that they
>> filled out at the Dallas Sheriff's Department, or by way of live radio
>> interviews, such as WFAA-TV cameraman Mal Couch's live report that was
>> broadcast on WFAA-Radio very shortly after the assassination on
>> 11/22/63 (which can be heard below).
>>
>> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
>>
>> The above Mal Couch interview, all by itself, totally destroys
>> Weisberg's fantasy (or anyone else's similar fantasy theory) about NO
>> SHOTS coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
>> Couch's statement on live Dallas radio on the very day of the
>> assassination has Couch confirming (for all time) that he actually saw
>> a rifle being pulled in from an upper floor of the TSBD.
>>
Newman said he heard shots fired from behind him on the knoll. Wiliis, his
wife and daughter all said they were positive the shots came from the
knoll. Holland standing on Elm Street said he saw a flash of light and
gunsmoke in the bushes from behind the picket fence. At least 100 people
ran up the knoll immediately after in reaction to what they saw. On and On
and ON.
>> Couch said it was the "fifth or sixth floor" of the Depository, and he
>> also said this: "There were people underneath the rifle, who looked up
>> to see where the shots had come from."
>>
>> And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle
>> protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he
>> saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is
>> confirmed by Tom Dillard's photograph.
>>
>> Mal Couch was either a liar or was mistaken when he said that he saw a
>> rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window.
>>
Yes. If he didn't know if it was fired from the fifth or the sixth floor.
>> rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window.
>>
Then after the rifle was found on the sixth floor he changed his story and
said it was the sixth floor.
>
> As always the logical errors in his argument.
> Couch can be telling the truth about seeing a rifle in the window.
> That is not proof that the rifle was fired during the assassination. That
> is what the acoustical analysis proved.
>
>> Or:
>>
>> The person who was sticking a rifle out of the sixth-floor window was
>> not really using his rifle as an assassination weapon that day -- the
>> gunman was merely pointing it out the window as a prop or just for
>> "show", but he didn't really fire any shots with that rifle.
>>
>> Both of the options above, of course, are just plain silly.
>>
>> 2.) Three spent shells from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
>> rifle were found underneath the sixth-floor window -- i.e., underneath
>> the very same window that eyewitnesses said they saw a rifle
>> protruding from.
>>
said the fifth or the sixth floor. Until the rifle was found and their
memory improved to remember it was the sixth floor. Yes they were ALL
lying.
>
> That alone does not prove that it was fired that day. That's what the
> acoustical evidence proves.
>
same evidence shows shot from the front, we can no longer have faith.
>> 3.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle was also found on the same sixth
>> floor. And it was proven that that exact Carcano rifle of Oswald's was
>> the weapon that fired bullets at JFK, via the fact (among other
>> things) that bullet fragments from that exact gun were found in the
>> front seat of the limousine.
> No one has ever described how that would be done. Alternatively some
> conspiracists can argue that the real fragments were made to disappear and
> be replaced by premade Carcano fragments. John Hunt has suggested that
> Frazier tampered with and falsified ballistic evidence.
>
>> 4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in
>> particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the
>> shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases
>> hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a liar too?)
>>
Yes. Because after hearing this evidence ALL three ran to the west side of
> conspiracists can argue that the real fragments were made to disappear and
> be replaced by premade Carcano fragments. John Hunt has suggested that
> Frazier tampered with and falsified ballistic evidence.
>
>> 4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in
>> particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the
>> shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases
>> hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a liar too?)
>>
the building before returning to the east side. They never went upstairs,
where they claimed to have heard shell dropping and the bolt working. But
they were more curious about what happened on the knoll? It just not
believeable. Not to a reasonable person. But who said LNers had to be
reasonable?
>
> If you don't think Harold Norman was a liar then the shooter did not eject
> the last cartridge. Norman did not include a CLICK-CLICK at the end of the
> sequence.
rifle too. And was the exact same ammo used. But only three empty shells
were left on the floor? Where is the fourth shell? Or did it bounce off
Connally's head and land in the plaza. Don't forget the first shot missed
too and one shot hit a drain cover lid and another hit the curb. But only
three shells? Another loose end.
>
> Somewhat like Curry stating that they could not put Oswald in that window
> shooting.
> Only one additional comment:
> Typical WC defender attack on ALL conspiracy believers.
I for one would be inclined to believe in the lone nut but there are to
> Typical WC defender attack on ALL conspiracy believers.
many loose ends and too many "mistakes" were made in the investigation.
Research
May 13, 2012, 6:05:03 PM5/13/12
to
> Jim DiEugenio said:
>
> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
> reenactments."
> DVP said:
>
> Great! Another fake picture!
>
> DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than
> the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
there and wait for a photo opt. Their faint images can be seen (or
someone's) in the Hughes film. So someone was there. But no rifle was
hanging out above their heads. If they heard what they claimed, why did
they run to the west end and return to the east end as they themselves
said? Why didn't they go upstairs, if they really heard the rifle firing
above their heads? Phony testimony and sound bits don't make concrete
evidence in a court or public opinion.
>
> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
was in the interrogation room when Oswald was brought in. Because Lovelady
was in custody for questioning. Because he fit the Oswald profile and the
police was looking for Oswald. And when he was arrested, Lovelady was
released. Even though he matched the description given by another eye
witness Bledshoe. Who claimed Oswald was on a bus. But was it really
Oswald or Lovelady? Where was Lovelady when he was arrested? Still
standing in the doorway?
Research
May 13, 2012, 6:05:32 PM5/13/12
to
news:a41823b8-bb95-41cf...@j25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
was taken after the shots were fired. And it proves ALL three remained on
the fifth floor even though they (supposedly) heard shots fired directly
over their heads. They didn't make their statements until after the rifle
was found on the sixth floor. And the picture was taken much later. Not as
the shots were fired.
>
> DVP said:
>
> Great! Another fake picture!
>
> DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than
> the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>
> As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it
> doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in
> order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However
> much NEEDS to be fake and phony, IS fake and phony (per the lone nut
On May 10, 11:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Switching gears (a little):
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#ent...
>
> Jim DiEugenio said:
>
> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
> reenactments."
No not fake or reenactments. Just wasn't taken as the shots were fired. It
> Switching gears (a little):
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=75#ent...
>
> Jim DiEugenio said:
>
> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
> reenactments."
was taken after the shots were fired. And it proves ALL three remained on
the fifth floor even though they (supposedly) heard shots fired directly
over their heads. They didn't make their statements until after the rifle
was found on the sixth floor. And the picture was taken much later. Not as
the shots were fired.
>
> DVP said:
>
> Great! Another fake picture!
>
> DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman, & Williams to be somewhere other than
> the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>
> As we can all easily see, for conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio, it
> doesn't matter how much stuff has to be deemed "fake" and "phony" in
> order to avoid the obvious conclusion of Lee Oswald's guilt. However
> clowns).
>
> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>
> There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe
> CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer).
>
> You guys are truly hysterical.
Yes, re-goddamn-diculous! Unfortunately too many "researchers" who start
out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter too many
contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order to preserve
their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
LNers can't help it. It is in their nature.
>
> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>
> There is NO END to the fakery in the JFK case (if you're a fringe
> CTer--like DiEugenio and Fetzer).
>
> You guys are truly hysterical.
Yes, re-goddamn-diculous! Unfortunately too many "researchers" who start
out sincere in their search for truth, at some point encounter too many
contrary pieces of evidence, and so the only way out in order to preserve
their "theory" is to throw the fakery/liar flag.
Research
May 13, 2012, 6:07:27 PM5/13/12
to
news:225b4fa9-75fb-49a0...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...
Yes. All these witnesses have flaws in their testimonies. If Enius (as
Marsh had pointed out) was where he claimed to be, then why isn't he in
the Hughes film? Or the Bell film? Brennan claimed to be sitting on the
wall, but he isn't in the Dorman film? How could Couch be focusing his
camera at the limo and looking up at the sixth floor at the same time? And
WHO is Jackson?
Marsh had pointed out) was where he claimed to be, then why isn't he in
the Hughes film? Or the Bell film? Brennan claimed to be sitting on the
wall, but he isn't in the Dorman film? How could Couch be focusing his
camera at the limo and looking up at the sixth floor at the same time? And
WHO is Jackson?
Ace Kefford
May 13, 2012, 6:08:18 PM5/13/12
to
On May 11, 1:26 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:
I think to ascribe to Weisberg cynical attempts at money-making as the
reason or even a primary reason for his interest and work with respect to
the assassination is way off base. His books display an incredible level
of passion about the case. He regularly took actions such as criticizing
other researchers or jumping off the Garrison and later Oliver Stone
bandwagons that would only hurt his reputation among the crowd who would
follow and support any line of conspiracy-oriented argument no matter how
ridiculous.
And from what I have read of his life and how he lived, there's not much
evidence of raking in the big bucks.
Sure, I imagine he would have liked to make a bundle, and I suppose the
books kept him afloat a bit, but I definitely think you are right that for
the time he put into it, he would have done better working at a minimum
wage job (although given his personality it would seem he would be
ill-suited to factory or retail work!).
wrote:
> When Weisberg's Goose farm shut down, he realized he could make much more
> money by "goosing" the public.
>
> Weisberg, (as did other critics) made a living off of the death of JFK.
>
> The value of Weisberg's lawsuits was far outweighed by his duplicity.
>
> John F.
>
> "HistorianDetective" <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> money by "goosing" the public.
>
> Weisberg, (as did other critics) made a living off of the death of JFK.
>
> The value of Weisberg's lawsuits was far outweighed by his duplicity.
>
> John F.
>
reason or even a primary reason for his interest and work with respect to
the assassination is way off base. His books display an incredible level
of passion about the case. He regularly took actions such as criticizing
other researchers or jumping off the Garrison and later Oliver Stone
bandwagons that would only hurt his reputation among the crowd who would
follow and support any line of conspiracy-oriented argument no matter how
ridiculous.
And from what I have read of his life and how he lived, there's not much
evidence of raking in the big bucks.
Sure, I imagine he would have liked to make a bundle, and I suppose the
books kept him afloat a bit, but I definitely think you are right that for
the time he put into it, he would have done better working at a minimum
wage job (although given his personality it would seem he would be
ill-suited to factory or retail work!).
Research
May 13, 2012, 7:01:00 PM5/13/12
to
news:4faf...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
For a dummy, maybe. Isn't there a big ole double door entrance door ON THE
FIRST FLOOR? What is that on the second floor too. Don't try to dumb down
every body in order to defend these idiots. They changed their story where
ever they need to. To make their statement more plausible. They are liars
and that they changed their statements because they are liars.
FIRST FLOOR? What is that on the second floor too. Don't try to dumb down
every body in order to defend these idiots. They changed their story where
ever they need to. To make their statement more plausible. They are liars
and that they changed their statements because they are liars.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 13, 2012, 7:06:43 PM5/13/12
to
said he was looking for a new source of income to replace the goose farm
income and decided to write about the Kennedy assassination.
> His books display an incredible level
> of passion about the case. He regularly took actions such as criticizing
> other researchers or jumping off the Garrison and later Oliver Stone
> bandwagons that would only hurt his reputation among the crowd who would
> follow and support any line of conspiracy-oriented argument no matter how
> ridiculous.
>
> And from what I have read of his life and how he lived, there's not much
> evidence of raking in the big bucks.
time I looked.
>
> Sure, I imagine he would have liked to make a bundle, and I suppose the
> books kept him afloat a bit, but I definitely think you are right that for
> the time he put into it, he would have done better working at a minimum
> wage job (although given his personality it would seem he would be
>
Again, Weisberg himself said he wrote _Whitewash_ for the money.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2012, 9:57:06 PM5/13/12
to
windows on the front of the TSBD on the first floor. So when you look up
and count the sniper's nest is the fifth window up. Why should the
witnesses lie? They were simply confused.
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2012, 11:06:46 PM5/13/12
to
that Euins was not in Dealey Plaza. I said the photographic evidence does
not show him anywhere near where he said he was and not doing what he said
he was doing. The photographic evidence does show Brennan sitting on the
wall, but not in the position he demonstrated for the WC. A few feet over
to his right. We can see him in the Zapruder film, Bell film, Martin film,
and yes we can see him in the Dorman film. But they show that he never
looked up at the TSBD as he said he did.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=84&pos=46
Bob Jackson was one of the other photographers with Dillard in camera car
3. When he heard the last shot he looked up and saw the barrel of the
rifle in the window. Instead of snapping the best picture with the best
camera equipped with the best telephoto he instead he had just shot the
last frame on the roll and not reloaded the camera. After the last shot
the other photographers were saying where did it come from. Jackson looked
up and could see the rifle in the window, but he did not take a picture.
If he had been ready and taken the picture he probably would have won a
Pulitzer Prize.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
May 13, 2012, 11:06:57 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 6:05 PM, Research wrote:
>> Jim DiEugenio said:
>>
>> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
>> reenactments."
>> DVP said:
>>
>> Great! Another fake picture!
>>
>> DiEugenio wants Jarman, Norman,& Williams to be somewhere other than
>> Jim DiEugenio said:
>>
>> "I actually am beginning to think those [Dillard] photos were
>> reenactments."
>> DVP said:
>>
>> Great! Another fake picture!
>>
>> the fifth floor at 12:30 PM, so what does Jimbo do (even with the
>> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
>> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>
> First of all the three ear witnesses you seem to believe, didn't just sit
> there and wait for a photo opt. Their faint images can be seen (or
> someone's) in the Hughes film. So someone was there. But no rifle was
> hanging out above their heads. If they heard what they claimed, why did
> they run to the west end and return to the east end as they themselves
> said? Why didn't they go upstairs, if they really heard the rifle firing
> above their heads? Phony testimony and sound bits don't make concrete
> evidence in a court or public opinion.
>
>>
>> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
>> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>
> Get your facts straight. Lovelady did see Oswald escorted into the DPD. He
> was in the interrogation room when Oswald was brought in. Because Lovelady
> was in custody for questioning. Because he fit the Oswald profile and the
> police was looking for Oswald. And when he was arrested, Lovelady was
Lovelady was arrested? Can you show me the paperwork on that?
>> Dillard picture staring back at him) -- Jimbo will pretend that the
>> Dillard picture is a "re-enactment" photo. Lovely.
>
> First of all the three ear witnesses you seem to believe, didn't just sit
> there and wait for a photo opt. Their faint images can be seen (or
> someone's) in the Hughes film. So someone was there. But no rifle was
> hanging out above their heads. If they heard what they claimed, why did
> they run to the west end and return to the east end as they themselves
> said? Why didn't they go upstairs, if they really heard the rifle firing
> above their heads? Phony testimony and sound bits don't make concrete
> evidence in a court or public opinion.
>
>>
>> Take Fetzer's latest "fake" revelation -- he thinks Lovelady was
>> inserted into the news film showing Oswald being taken into the DPD.
>
> Get your facts straight. Lovelady did see Oswald escorted into the DPD. He
> was in the interrogation room when Oswald was brought in. Because Lovelady
> was in custody for questioning. Because he fit the Oswald profile and the
> police was looking for Oswald. And when he was arrested, Lovelady was
Anthony Marsh
May 14, 2012, 12:44:19 AM5/14/12
to
said is that if the acoustical evidence had not found the grassy knoll
shot the WC defenders would rely on it to prove that Oswald fired three
shots from the sniper's nest.
> ner window on the sixth floor of the Depository is
>>> not just beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence to prove that fact
>>> has unquestionably been established beyond all possible doubt. And
>>> even most conspiracy theorists will acknowledge that some shots were,
>>> indeed, fired from the sixth floor.
>
> Even CTers have to acknowledge a shot entered Kennedy's back, It had to
> have been shot from the rear. But that in itself does not mean that Oswald
> pulled the trigger. Or that it came from the sixth floor.
>
from behind the limo.
But the acoustical evidence does not tell us who pulled the trigger,
just that Oswald's rifle was fired three times from the sniper's window.
>
>
> shots at all came from the sixth floor of
>>> the TSBD:
>>>
>>> 1.) The first-day (11/22/63) interviews and affidavits and statements
>>> from several eyewitnesses, in which various witnesses told their story
>>> about having seen a gunman (or a gun) in the southeast window on the
>>> sixth floor of the Book Depository.
>>>
>>> These witnesses include: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson,
>>> and Mal Couch (and a couple of others). And most (if not all) of these
>>> people told their eyewitness accounts within literally hours of the
>>> shooting (or even less), either via written affidavits that they
>>> filled out at the Dallas Sheriff's Department, or by way of live radio
>>> interviews, such as WFAA-TV cameraman Mal Couch's live report that was
>>> broadcast on WFAA-Radio very shortly after the assassination on
>>> 11/22/63 (which can be heard below).
>>>
>>> http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html
>>>
>>> The above Mal Couch interview, all by itself, totally destroys
>>> Weisberg's fantasy (or anyone else's similar fantasy theory) about NO
>>> SHOTS coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
>>> Couch's statement on live Dallas radio on the very day of the
>>> assassination has Couch confirming (for all time) that he actually saw
>>> a rifle being pulled in from an upper floor of the TSBD.
>>>
>
> Arnold said he saw shots fired from the knoll and men carring rifles.
> Newman said he heard shots fired from behind him on the knoll. Wiliis, his
> wife and daughter all said they were positive the shots came from the
> knoll. Holland standing on Elm Street said he saw a flash of light and
> gunsmoke in the bushes from behind the picket fence. At least 100 people
> ran up the knoll immediately after in reaction to what they saw. On and On
> and ON.
>
from the grassy knoll.
running to.
HistorianDetective
May 14, 2012, 10:18:41 AM5/14/12
to
On May 11, 7:33 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
RE:
> I refer you to Weisberg, who said he wrote the book for the income to
> replace that lost when his goose farm closed down.
That statement of his would make him one of the most honest, if not
the most honest writer who ever lived.
Could you cite the book? Or even better, post the passage?
>You want to argue with him over it, not me. He said it. I just pointed it out he said it.
Hard to argue with a dead man.
>
> And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's Carousel
> Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the assassination, I
> understand. But that doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money. And
> Weisberg was in the book-writing business for the same reason.
>
> He admitted as much.
>
> Hank
hmmmmmm....You just flip flopped your argument.
If it doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money and Weisberg was in
the book-writing business for the same reason, then Weisberg was not
in the book-writing business for making money.
Even though Wiesberg may have written that he wanted to make money,
his actions didn't follow this. It also contradicts what those who
knew him well have said about him. Making money off the JFK
assassination was not his motivation.
JM/HD
> I refer you to Weisberg, who said he wrote the book for the income to
> replace that lost when his goose farm closed down.
the most honest writer who ever lived.
Could you cite the book? Or even better, post the passage?
>You want to argue with him over it, not me. He said it. I just pointed it out he said it.
>
> And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's Carousel
> Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the assassination, I
> understand. But that doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money. And
> Weisberg was in the book-writing business for the same reason.
>
> He admitted as much.
>
> Hank
If it doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money and Weisberg was in
the book-writing business for the same reason, then Weisberg was not
in the book-writing business for making money.
Even though Wiesberg may have written that he wanted to make money,
his actions didn't follow this. It also contradicts what those who
knew him well have said about him. Making money off the JFK
assassination was not his motivation.
JM/HD
Anthony Marsh
May 14, 2012, 6:13:34 PM5/14/12
to
sense of decency at long last?
>
>> You want to argue with him over it, not me. He said it. I just pointed it out he said it.
>
> Hard to argue with a dead man.
>
>>
>> And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's Carousel
>> Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the assassination, I
>> understand. But that doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money. And
>> Weisberg was in the book-writing business for the same reason.
>>
>> He admitted as much.
>>
>> Hank
>
> hmmmmmm....You just flip flopped your argument.
>
> If it doesn't mean Jack was in it for the money and Weisberg was in
> the book-writing business for the same reason, then Weisberg was not
> in the book-writing business for making money.
>
donate it to charity and live on welfare. Just ask J.K. Rowling or Vincent
Bugliosi.
> Even though Wiesberg may have written that he wanted to make money,
> his actions didn't follow this. It also contradicts what those who
ever seen Weisberg's Lamborginis or his yachts? Did he have to build an
elevator to park his 100 cars?
> knew him well have said about him. Making money off the JFK
> assassination was not his motivation.
>
> JM/HD
>
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 14, 2012, 6:15:04 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 10:18 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
sorry, of course Jack was in it for the money. Just a typo. Wrote
"was" when I meant "wasn't":
"And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's
Carousel Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the
assassination, I understand. But that doesn't mean Jack *wasn't* in it for
"was" when I meant "wasn't":
"And plenty of businesses bleed red ink. For instance, Jack Ruby's
Carousel Club was a money-losing proposition at the time of the
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 14, 2012, 10:06:50 PM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 10:18 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
Certainly, but my memory isn't what it once once. I had to google my own
argument from 12 years ago (with me posting as Joe Zircon). and found
this, which isn't wholly from Weisberg's books. So my apologies for
mistakenly attributing this all to a preface from one of Weisberg's books,
but all is from Weisberg himself. Please note the references to "you" in
the below are to someone else back in 2000, not to you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c8c0e12c289e45da/a097b854d4b71fee?lnk=gst&q=zircon+Weisberg+income#a097b854d4b71fee
"CASE OPEN, by Weisberg, relates his experiences with raising chickens.
However, he also says, relating the time-frame of this chicken-raising
experience, that John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State (CASE OPEN, pg
x). Dulles was Secretary of State under Eisenhauer, in the 1950's,
according to ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, by Jim Garrison. He says he
became 'National Barbeque King' and won 1st and 3rd prizes in the whole
country for raising chickens.
Weisberg concludes that farming story in CASE OPEN by relating that
helicopter pilots ruined his busines by flying too close to the farm (pg
x).
Now, in THE SCAVENGERS AND CRITICS OF THE WARREN REPORT, by Schiller and
Lewis, published in 1967, they relate that Weisberg "had probably been
best known as the *1959* National Barbecuing Champion.' [p. 122] They
relate that "Low-flying helicopters, according to Weisberg, eventually
inhibited his flock of geese from reproducing. He sued and won a $750
settlement." [p.123]
They go on to quote Weisberg (p.123): "I had to stop farming and I
decided, 'Well, what do you do when you're fifty and you have to change
your life all over again?' he recalls. 'I decided to go back to writing.
WE WERE LIQUIDATING OUR FARM AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION. I was as
shocked as everybody else. ... Like everybody else, I wondered: 'Was there
a conspiracy? What kind of a conspiracy?'... I told my wife two hours
before he was killed: 'This poor son of a bitch is gonna die. They have to
close his mouth.' " [emphasis added]
So, from Weisberg himself, we learn the following: His farm was being
liquidated and his bird-business already dead by November 22, 1963. (Your
point that Weisberg raised chickens for income when he began his research
is therefore false). Apparently so is your claim that Weisberg was
receiving a pension at 50, as Weisberg himself admitted to no such income.
Weisberg himself admitted in 1967 he turned to writing as a source of
income. His books, to my knowledge, turned out since 1963 amount to 10 - -
one on the M.L.King assassination and 9 on the JFK assassination. All
written, as Weisberg admitted, for the money.
He also admitted he had already decided, by 9:20 on Sunday, 11/24/63 -
only 45 hours after the assassination - that there was a conspiracy of
some sort. And his books reflect that initial rush to judgment. He has
spent the last 30+ years attempting to validate that early decision that
there WAS a conspiracy (at a time when no evidence for one had been
uncovered), a decision which could not have been made on the basis of the
then available evidence.
He has spent the last 30 years raising false and misleading points about
the assassination. In nearly every point he has raised, he has been proven
wrong.
But thank you for bringing up Weisberg's farming. This allowed me the
opportunity to dispel the notion that Weisberg has earned any income from
farming since 1963. This also allowed me the opportunity to point out that
Weisberg himself admitted (in 1967) he turned to writing as a source of
income after the failure of the farm. Since that time, he has written 10
books on assassinations."
Hank
argument from 12 years ago (with me posting as Joe Zircon). and found
this, which isn't wholly from Weisberg's books. So my apologies for
mistakenly attributing this all to a preface from one of Weisberg's books,
but all is from Weisberg himself. Please note the references to "you" in
the below are to someone else back in 2000, not to you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c8c0e12c289e45da/a097b854d4b71fee?lnk=gst&q=zircon+Weisberg+income#a097b854d4b71fee
"CASE OPEN, by Weisberg, relates his experiences with raising chickens.
However, he also says, relating the time-frame of this chicken-raising
experience, that John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State (CASE OPEN, pg
x). Dulles was Secretary of State under Eisenhauer, in the 1950's,
according to ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, by Jim Garrison. He says he
became 'National Barbeque King' and won 1st and 3rd prizes in the whole
country for raising chickens.
Weisberg concludes that farming story in CASE OPEN by relating that
helicopter pilots ruined his busines by flying too close to the farm (pg
x).
Now, in THE SCAVENGERS AND CRITICS OF THE WARREN REPORT, by Schiller and
Lewis, published in 1967, they relate that Weisberg "had probably been
best known as the *1959* National Barbecuing Champion.' [p. 122] They
relate that "Low-flying helicopters, according to Weisberg, eventually
inhibited his flock of geese from reproducing. He sued and won a $750
settlement." [p.123]
They go on to quote Weisberg (p.123): "I had to stop farming and I
decided, 'Well, what do you do when you're fifty and you have to change
your life all over again?' he recalls. 'I decided to go back to writing.
WE WERE LIQUIDATING OUR FARM AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION. I was as
shocked as everybody else. ... Like everybody else, I wondered: 'Was there
a conspiracy? What kind of a conspiracy?'... I told my wife two hours
before he was killed: 'This poor son of a bitch is gonna die. They have to
close his mouth.' " [emphasis added]
So, from Weisberg himself, we learn the following: His farm was being
liquidated and his bird-business already dead by November 22, 1963. (Your
point that Weisberg raised chickens for income when he began his research
is therefore false). Apparently so is your claim that Weisberg was
receiving a pension at 50, as Weisberg himself admitted to no such income.
Weisberg himself admitted in 1967 he turned to writing as a source of
income. His books, to my knowledge, turned out since 1963 amount to 10 - -
one on the M.L.King assassination and 9 on the JFK assassination. All
written, as Weisberg admitted, for the money.
He also admitted he had already decided, by 9:20 on Sunday, 11/24/63 -
only 45 hours after the assassination - that there was a conspiracy of
some sort. And his books reflect that initial rush to judgment. He has
spent the last 30+ years attempting to validate that early decision that
there WAS a conspiracy (at a time when no evidence for one had been
uncovered), a decision which could not have been made on the basis of the
then available evidence.
He has spent the last 30 years raising false and misleading points about
the assassination. In nearly every point he has raised, he has been proven
wrong.
But thank you for bringing up Weisberg's farming. This allowed me the
opportunity to dispel the notion that Weisberg has earned any income from
farming since 1963. This also allowed me the opportunity to point out that
Weisberg himself admitted (in 1967) he turned to writing as a source of
income after the failure of the farm. Since that time, he has written 10
books on assassinations."
Hank
0 new messages