On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas School Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A, a minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three witnesses to Event A....
One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At first, one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming X-ray vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, opposite the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said upper-floor windows.
Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission testimony, where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170 pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up." (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this."
Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says, "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork. It might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's height and weight....
Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems, understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill, or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526). Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly, "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never mentions seeing a box in the window.)
Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas School > Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A, a > minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be > clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three > witnesses to Event A....
> One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 > statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the > depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At first, > one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming X-ray > vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, opposite > the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the > windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower > portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said > upper-floor windows.
> Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission testimony, > where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170 > pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the > suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
> By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics > at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could > see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window > sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up." > (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for > Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half > open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that > window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly > sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to > would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
> However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He > testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this."
> Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
> Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
> The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says, > "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered > circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed > have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork. It > might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's > height and weight....
> Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any > corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his > uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A > witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that > "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny > position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey > (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
> Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems, > understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill, > or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd > enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's
> co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but > who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only > (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
> In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was > wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see > the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis > added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526).
> Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in > fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the > same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
> How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan > leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all > the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past > the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the > window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take > in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a > part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly, > "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man > would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never > mentions seeing a box in the window.)
> Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository > window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the > same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the > sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken > place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no > shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
> dcw
I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections, which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses, which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I don't see how random and expected and mundane inconsistencies in the statements of only two witnesses about which window, how far it was or wasn't open, witness claims of the shooter's appearance, etc., are especially valuable in establishing whether or not shots were fired from a particular window. In other words, it is the conclusion stated in your final sentence that I do not feel you have adequately supported.
> In article <0943dbf5-5560-4dd4-b643-dbfce6ced2e4@googlegroups.com>,
> dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas School
>> Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A, a
>> minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be
>> clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three
>> witnesses to Event A....
>> One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63
>> statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the
>> depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At first,
>> one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming X-ray
>> vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, opposite
>> the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the
>> windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower
>> portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said
>> upper-floor windows.
>> Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission testimony,
>> where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170
>> pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the
>> suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
>> By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics
>> at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could
>> see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window
>> sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up."
>> (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for
>> Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half
>> open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that
>> window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly
>> sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to
>> would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
>> However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He
>> testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this."
>> Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
>> Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
>> The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says,
>> "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered
>> circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed
>> have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork. It
>> might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's
>> height and weight....
>> Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any
>> corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his
>> uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A
>> witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that
>> "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny
>> position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey
>> (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
>> Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems,
>> understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill,
>> or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd
>> enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's
>> co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but
>> who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only
>> (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
>> In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was
>> wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see
>> the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis
>> added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526).
>> Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in
>> fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the
>> same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
>> How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan
>> leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all
>> the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past
>> the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the
>> window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take
>> in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a
>> part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly,
>> "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man
>> would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never
>> mentions seeing a box in the window.)
>> Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository
>> window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the
>> same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the
>> sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken
>> place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no
>> shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
>> dcw
> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I
Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
Now you're saying 76%? Are you backing down? And even your 76% is phony, because not all of your 216 witnesses gave an opinion.
> don't see how random and expected and mundane inconsistencies in the
> statements of only two witnesses about which window, how far it was or
> wasn't open, witness claims of the shooter's appearance, etc., are
> especially valuable in establishing whether or not shots were fired from a
> particular window. In other words, it is the conclusion stated in your
> final sentence that I do not feel you have adequately supported.
On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas School Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle.
Event A, a minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three witnesses to Event A....
One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At first, one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming X-ray vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, opposite the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said upper-floor windows.
Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission testimony, where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170 pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
I don't see how Brennan could tell the suspect was 5' 10 because of the boxes in the window. The boxes would obviously block his view. But it is curious to me that Brennan described the rifle and didn't see the large scope mounted on top of it. He was asked directly, did you see the scope? His answer was "No." Neither did Amos Euins. He described the rifle and said the rifle was stuck out the window 3 foot. And didn't see the scope. And he did see the boxes. And said the rifle was sticking out window past the boxes three foot. How could he see the entire rifle hidden behind the boxes? (from his position) But he too testified he did not see the scope when he was asked.
By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up." (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525).
What Brennan is testifying to would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
He was talking about the fifth floor ear witnesses sitting and leaning out the fifth floor windows. Then he was asked to mark the windows on a photo and he marked the wrong windows.
However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this." Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?" Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says, "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork.
It might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's height and weight....
The glare of the sun on the half opened window obscured his sight.
Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems, understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill, or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but who was less forthcoming in his description.
Edwards apparently said only (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526). Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199).
Had the window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly, "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions.
(Fischer never mentions seeing a box in the window.)
Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
Of course some shots did come from higher above. But I don't think it was the assassin's window alone. There had to be shots fired from behind. But when you line up the actual position of the limo with the assassin window, the bullet trajectory is impossibly wrong. From the assassin's window the head shot would have existed the left side of the head and not the right. Don't you think?
> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <0943dbf5-5560-4dd4-b643-dbfce6ced2e4@googlegroups.com>,
> > dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas > >> School
> >> Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A, > >> a
> >> minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be
> >> clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three
> >> witnesses to Event A....
> >> One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63
> >> statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the
> >> depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At > >> first,
> >> one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming > >> X-ray
> >> vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground, > >> opposite
> >> the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the
> >> windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower
> >> portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said
> >> upper-floor windows.
> >> Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission > >> testimony,
> >> where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170
> >> pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the
> >> suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
> >> By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital > >> statistics
> >> at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I > >> could
> >> see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the > >> window
> >> sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up."
> >> (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for
> >> Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half
> >> open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that
> >> window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly
> >> sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to
> >> would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
> >> However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He
> >> testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like > >> this."
> >> Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
> >> Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
> >> The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan > >> says,
> >> "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered
> >> circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed
> >> have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork.
> >> It
> >> might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's
> >> height and weight....
> >> Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any
> >> corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his
> >> uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event > >> A
> >> witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that
> >> "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a > >> funny
> >> position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in > >> Dealey
> >> (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
> >> Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems,
> >> understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the > >> sill,
> >> or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an > >> odd
> >> enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including > >> Fischer's
> >> co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, > >> but
> >> who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only
> >> (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
> >> In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was
> >> wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see
> >> the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. > >> Lewis
> >> added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526).
> >> Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would > >> in
> >> fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the
> >> same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
> >> How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan
> >> leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all
> >> the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see > >> past
> >> the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the
> >> window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to > >> take
> >> in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in > >> a
> >> part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly,
> >> "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man
> >> would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never
> >> mentions seeing a box in the window.)
> >> Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository
> >> window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the
> >> same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the
> >> sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have > >> taken
> >> place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no
> >> shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
> >> dcw
> > I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> > about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> > which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> > which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
> > majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
> > c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I
> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
> Now you're saying 76%?
Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90% regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came from a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how many people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
> Are you backing down?
Nope. You apparently are though. You still haven't quoted a single witness in "Anthony Marsh says I can't do this ;-)" who said the shots came from multiple directions. You also haven't quoted a single witness there who said that any shot sounded as if it came from closer or farther than the others. Would that be a tacit admission that I have been right all along? ;-)
> And even your 76% is phony,
Correction: I said c.76%. See the "c." in front of the number? That stands for "circa" which means "approximately." And of course you will refuse to even attempt to prove it is phony, correct? And you'll also continue to pretend that that figure originates from me, right? Don't you know how to use the Internet?
> because not all of your 216 witnesses gave an opinion.
Didn't say all of them did. But even so, c.76% of all the 216 witnesses said they heard three shots. The remaining c.24% includes all others, including those who did not say how many shots there were, or specifically said they didn't recall, as well as all the people who gave a different number than three. You will be helplessly unable to prove otherwise, since you don't know the witness statements nearly as well as I do, not even close.
> In article <506b55e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <0943dbf5-5560-4dd4-b643-dbfce6ced2e4@googlegroups.com>,
>>> dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> On November 22, 1963, there were two events in a window of the Texas
>>>> School
>>>> Book Depository. Event B was, of course, the firing of a rifle. Event A,
>>>> a
>>>> minute more or less before this, was something which will perhaps never be
>>>> clearly, or exactly, understood. There seem to have been two or three
>>>> witnesses to Event A....
>>>> One of the early signs of Event A was witness Howard Brennan's 11/22/63
>>>> statement, in which he said that the man he saw in an upper window of the
>>>> depository "would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." (CE 2003 p13) At
>>>> first,
>>>> one might conclude that this was more a sign of an individual claiming
>>>> X-ray
>>>> vision, since Brennan was sitting on a retaining wall on the ground,
>>>> opposite
>>>> the building, and the suspect was ensconced several floors up, where the
>>>> windows would not have allowed ground-level witnesses to see the lower
>>>> portions of the anatomy of someone standing/sitting/crouching behind said
>>>> upper-floor windows.
>>>> Brennan's apparent daftness continued with his Warren Commission
>>>> testimony,
>>>> where he repeated, with variations, his weight estimate: "from 160 to 170
>>>> pounds" (v3p144), and the daftness was amplified by an estimate of the
>>>> suspect's height: "possibly 5-foot-10" (p144).
>>>> By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital
>>>> statistics
>>>> at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I
>>>> could
>>>> see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the
>>>> window
>>>> sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up."
>>>> (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for
>>>> Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half
>>>> open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that
>>>> window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly
>>>> sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to
>>>> would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
>>>> However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He
>>>> testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like
>>>> this."
>>>> Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
>>>> Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
>>>> The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan
>>>> says,
>>>> "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered
>>>> circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed
>>>> have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork.
>>>> It
>>>> might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's
>>>> height and weight....
>>>> Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any
>>>> corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his
>>>> uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event
>>>> A
>>>> witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that
>>>> "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a
>>>> funny
>>>> position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in
>>>> Dealey
>>>> (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
>>>> Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems,
>>>> understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the
>>>> sill,
>>>> or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an
>>>> odd
>>>> enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including
>>>> Fischer's
>>>> co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did,
>>>> but
>>>> who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only
>>>> (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
>>>> In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was
>>>> wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see
>>>> the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L.
>>>> Lewis
>>>> added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526).
>>>> Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would
>>>> in
>>>> fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the
>>>> same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
>>>> How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan
>>>> leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all
>>>> the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see
>>>> past
>>>> the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the
>>>> window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to
>>>> take
>>>> in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in
>>>> a
>>>> part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly,
>>>> "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man
>>>> would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never
>>>> mentions seeing a box in the window.)
>>>> Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository
>>>> window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the
>>>> same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the
>>>> sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have
>>>> taken
>>>> place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no
>>>> shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
>>>> dcw
>>> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
>>> about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
>>> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
>>> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
>>> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
>>> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I
>> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
>> Now you're saying 76%?
> Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90%
> regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came from
> a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot
> sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how many
> people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
No, you never said 76% before. You always said 90% no matter what the issue. 90% of fish are Jewish. Whatever.
You got caught so you are backing down.
>> Are you backing down?
> Nope. You apparently are though. You still haven't quoted a single
> witness in "Anthony Marsh says I can't do this ;-)" who said the shots
> came from multiple directions. You also haven't quoted a single witness
> there who said that any shot sounded as if it came from closer or farther
> than the others. Would that be a tacit admission that I have been right
> all along? ;-)
>> And even your 76% is phony,
> Correction: I said c.76%. See the "c." in front of the number? That
Next week you'll back it down to 50%.
> stands for "circa" which means "approximately." And of course you will
> refuse to even attempt to prove it is phony, correct? And you'll also
> continue to pretend that that figure originates from me, right? Don't you
> know how to use the Internet?
Now that you got caught you're going to try to blame it on someone else? Isn't that a little cowardly of you? Man up and be proud of your blunders.
>> because not all of your 216 witnesses gave an opinion.
> Didn't say all of them did. But even so, c.76% of all the 216 witnesses
> said they heard three shots. The remaining c.24% includes all others,
No. Cite each and every one of them and quote them saying three shots.
> including those who did not say how many shots there were, or specifically
> said they didn't recall, as well as all the people who gave a different
> number than three. You will be helplessly unable to prove otherwise,
> since you don't know the witness statements nearly as well as I do, not
> even close.
> > By way of explanation, it seems, of his ability to estimate vital statistics
> > at this distance and under these circumstances, Brennan testified, "I could
> > see... at one time, he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window
> > sill.... And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up."
> > (p144) But that "explanation" would only seem to compound the problem for
> > Brennan. For the "sniper's nest" window on the sixth floor was only half
> > open at the time of the shooting, and there was, famously, a box in that
> > window--a box bisecting the very brickwork on which the suspect supposedly
> > sat sideways (Pictures of the Pain p525). What Brennan is testifying to
> > would seem to be all but impossible, physically.
> > However, that is not exactly what Brennan himself said that he saw. He
> > testified that the assassin was firing from a window "open just like this."
> > Belin: "Just like the windows on the fifth floor immediately below?"
> > Brennan: "That is right." (p153)
> > The windows below were wide open, not just half open. Further, Brennan says,
> > "I don't remember a box in the window" (p153). Under these altered
> > circumstances--a window open further, and no box in same--it would indeed
> > have been possible, it seems, for the man to have sat on the brickwork. It
> > might even have been possible for Brennan to hazard a guess at the man's
> > height and weight....
> > Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any
> > corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his
> > uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other Event A
> > witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said that
> > "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in a funny
> > position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade arrived in Dealey
> > (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny position".
> > Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems,
> > understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the sill,
> > or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it was an odd
> > enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses, including Fischer's
> > co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man before Fischer did, but
> > who was less forthcoming in his description. Edwards apparently said only
> > (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's uncomfortable." (v6p193)
> > In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man was
> > wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could see
> > the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L. Lewis
> > added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks" (v19p526).
> > Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes, that would in
> > fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and Fischer saw the
> > same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
> > How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan
> > leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not all
> > the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see past
> > the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199). Had the
> > window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been able to take
> > in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan had seen was in a
> > part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say, fairly credibly,
> > "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in the window, the man
> > would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions. (Fischer never
> > mentions seeing a box in the window.)
> > Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository
> > window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at the
> > same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the
> > sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have taken
> > place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means that no
> > shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
> > dcw
> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> which is to be expected
Actually, it's just the opposite. I was talking about the *similarity* in the observations of Brennan & Fischer. Each saw someone sitting or lying in or near the window in an odd way.
, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
There were very few witnesses to this guy *before* the shooting. Only four, in all, I think--Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, & Mrs. Walther. And they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an odd way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in it....
In article <506d10b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> No, you never said 76% before. You always said 90% no matter what the
Bull. You're again talking about two different issues.
I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have also refused to admit.
In article <838fc80e-6544-49be-b398-59c8f0361535@googlegroups.com>,
dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking > > about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections, > > which is to be expected
> Actually, it's just the opposite. I was talking about the *similarity* in > the observations of Brennan & Fischer. Each saw someone sitting or lying > in or near the window in an odd way.
Ok.
> > and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> There were very few witnesses to this guy *before* the shooting. Only > four, in all, I think--Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, & Mrs. Walther.
What about Arnold Rowland?
> And > they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an odd > way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked > that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in > among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that > the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands > extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to > say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret > Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
> But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter > could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in > it....
But they didn't *all* say he was lying across the window sill, correct?
If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had, say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these four witnesses you've named were all over the place. In his same-day affidavit, Robert Edwards said the man was on the fifth floor, and he didn't say which window, although he did mention the boxes. There is also nothing in the affidavit about the shooter lying across the sill. In his WC testimony he said sixth floor, and again mentioned the boxes, and this time he did say that it was the very last window at the corner of the building. And there is still no mention of him lying across the sill.
Thus these four witnesses do not come even remotely close to a consensus on this matter.
> On 10/3/2012 11:05 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <506b55e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> >>> about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> >>> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> >>> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
> >>> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
> >>> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I
> >> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
> >> Now you're saying 76%?
> > Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90%
> > regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came from
> > a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot
> > sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how many
> > people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
> No, you never said 76% before.
Bull. You're afraid to look in the archives. I have said many times for the past decade that more than 76% of the witnesses said they heard three shots.
> You always said 90% no matter what the > issue.
Bull. You yet again are claiming I said something different from what I actually said, just like you frequently do with most of the other posters here. You are obviously not trustworthy in your claims on any issue, even the JFK assassination. You keep claiming that other posters here said things they never said, and then absolutely refuse to admit your mistakes even after you're corrected. How many mistakes have you made about the assassination which you also refuse to admit?
I never once said that more than 90% of the witnesses said there were three shots. Never. So no, I do not give that figure "no matter what the issue." I have given that approximate figure for a different issue than the number of shots, as you ought to know perfectly well by now. And no other poster in this newsgroup seems to be confused as to which issue that is, except for you. Oh yes, a couple of other posters have *disagreed* with my claims, but neither of them claimed I was talking about a different issue than I was actually talking about. You are literally the only poster here who has done that.
I have said that more than 90% of all witnesses who named a specific direction for the shots named only that direction. That's a different issue from the percentage who named the number of shots regardless of direction.
> 90% of fish are Jewish. Whatever.
> You got caught so you are backing down.
No, you've gotten caught, yet again, claiming I said something I've never once said, and in addition claiming I never said something else I've in fact said several times. You're afraid to look through the threads and the archives to see what I really said, so you resort to making up your own versions of what I've said. You are by far the worst poster in this newsgroup in that regard, and others besides me have said things similar to that about you too. Then you compound the problem by refusing to admit your mistakes, no matter how obvious they are, even after they are pointed out to you. This raises the question of how many mistakes you've made about the JFK assassination as well, which you also refuse to admit. If you're willing to go so far as to make up things other posters never said, and then on top of that refusing to admit your mistakes no matter how obvious they are, then obviously you might be willing to do that with the assassination too.
Starting early last month I was willing to give you another chance, Anthony. But you're still doing the same things you did years ago. You still continue to claim I said things I've never said. You still refuse to apologize and admit your errors, even after they are pointed out to you. Had our positions been reversed, I would have almost certainly apologized and admitted my error as soon as I first saw you correct me, if, for example, I had claimed that you had said that JFK had his fists up already by Z225, which is of course something you've never said. But you did say that I've claimed that, even though I never have. And you still refuse to apologize to me and admit that you made a mistake. I do not see why any reasonable person should take anything you say on any subject seriously until you start being more open about admitting your obvious mistakes. I'm willing to admit mine; why can't you show me the same courtesy? For example, I'm freely admitting right now that I had Mary Woodward in the wrong place, and she certainly wasn't talking about the fence, although she also didn't mean the TSBD either. See? But that's not a mistake I made about what you said, that's a mistake I made about her. I don't generally claim that you've said things you've never said.
But you claim that about me every day.
And you almost never apologize for it and admit your mistakes.
Yet again I challenge you to quote me verbatim saying that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. I have never claimed that. Could you please admit that I've never said that? Thank you.
> In article <506d10b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 11:05 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <506b55e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
>>>>> about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
>>>>> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
>>>>> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
>>>>> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
>>>>> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. I
>>>> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
>>>> Now you're saying 76%?
>>> Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90%
>>> regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came from
>>> a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot
>>> sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how many
>>> people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
>> No, you never said 76% before.
> Bull. You're afraid to look in the archives. I have said many times
> for the past decade that more than 76% of the witnesses said they heard
> three shots.
Yeah, and more than 1% said they heard three shots. But again your statistics are phony. I could just as easily change you 219 witnesses into 800 witnesses just to ruin your statistics.
>> You always said 90% no matter what the
>> issue.
> Bull. You yet again are claiming I said something different from what I
> actually said, just like you frequently do with most of the other posters
> here. You are obviously not trustworthy in your claims on any issue, even
> the JFK assassination. You keep claiming that other posters here said
> things they never said, and then absolutely refuse to admit your mistakes
> even after you're corrected. How many mistakes have you made about the
> assassination which you also refuse to admit?
> I never once said that more than 90% of the witnesses said there were
> three shots. Never. So no, I do not give that figure "no matter what the
> issue." I have given that approximate figure for a different issue than
> the number of shots, as you ought to know perfectly well by now. And no
> other poster in this newsgroup seems to be confused as to which issue that
> is, except for you. Oh yes, a couple of other posters have *disagreed*
> with my claims, but neither of them claimed I was talking about a
> different issue than I was actually talking about. You are literally the
> only poster here who has done that.
> I have said that more than 90% of all witnesses who named a specific
> direction for the shots named only that direction. That's a different
> issue from the percentage who named the number of shots regardless of
> direction.
>> 90% of fish are Jewish. Whatever.
>> You got caught so you are backing down.
> No, you've gotten caught, yet again, claiming I said something I've never
> once said, and in addition claiming I never said something else I've in
I never claimed that you said it. It is an example of how ridiculous your 90% is when you apply it to everything in the universe.
> fact said several times. You're afraid to look through the threads and
> the archives to see what I really said, so you resort to making up your
> own versions of what I've said. You are by far the worst poster in this
> newsgroup in that regard, and others besides me have said things similar
> to that about you too. Then you compound the problem by refusing to admit
> your mistakes, no matter how obvious they are, even after they are pointed
> out to you. This raises the question of how many mistakes you've made
> about the JFK assassination as well, which you also refuse to admit. If
> you're willing to go so far as to make up things other posters never said,
> and then on top of that refusing to admit your mistakes no matter how
> obvious they are, then obviously you might be willing to do that with the
> assassination too.
> Starting early last month I was willing to give you another chance,
> Anthony. But you're still doing the same things you did years ago. You
And I will continue to challenge the WC defenders until you kill me.
> still continue to claim I said things I've never said. You still refuse
> to apologize and admit your errors, even after they are pointed out to
> you. Had our positions been reversed, I would have almost certainly
> apologized and admitted my error as soon as I first saw you correct me,
> if, for example, I had claimed that you had said that JFK had his fists up
> already by Z225, which is of course something you've never said. But you
> did say that I've claimed that, even though I never have. And you still
> refuse to apologize to me and admit that you made a mistake. I do not see
> why any reasonable person should take anything you say on any subject
> seriously until you start being more open about admitting your obvious
> mistakes. I'm willing to admit mine; why can't you show me the same
> courtesy? For example, I'm freely admitting right now that I had Mary
> Woodward in the wrong place, and she certainly wasn't talking about the
> fence, although she also didn't mean the TSBD either. See? But that's
> not a mistake I made about what you said, that's a mistake I made about
> her. I don't generally claim that you've said things you've never said.
> But you claim that about me every day.
> And you almost never apologize for it and admit your mistakes.
Now wait a damn minute. I thought that you used to say that I NEVER admit a mistake and never apologize. Are you getting soft?
> Yet again I challenge you to quote me verbatim saying that JFK already had
> his fists up by Z225. I have never claimed that. Could you please admit
> that I've never said that? Thank you.
I am pointing out the incongruity of your ever changing frames. You have JFK"s fists up by Z-225 and then the bullet hitting Connally at Z-226.
You need to move your SBT back to Z-221.
Interesting that you make no mention that Connally begins to jerk violently at almost exactly the same frame you give above for the beginning of JFK's visible reaction. Really it's Z226 rather than Z225 for both men, but that's trivial. But I'm not going to believe you or anyone else who says they "don't see" the flip of Connally's hat that clearly begins no later than Z226.
Where did I say JFK's fists were already up by Z225? Nowhere. Where did I say that Connally was hit by the bullet at Z226? Nowhere. I said that both men begin to react to being hit at Z226.
Still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for you to admit you made an obvious mistake about this. I cannot take you seriously ever again until you man up about this, as I would have unhesitatingly done had our positions been reversed.
> > > I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> > > about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> > > which is to be expected
> > Actually, it's just the opposite. I was talking about the *similarity* in
> > the observations of Brennan & Fischer. Each saw someone sitting or lying
> > in or near the window in an odd way.
> Ok.
> > > and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> > There were very few witnesses to this guy *before* the shooting. Only
> > four, in all, I think--Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, & Mrs. Walther.
> What about Arnold Rowland?
> > And
> > they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an odd
> > way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked
> > that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in
> > among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that
> > the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands
> > extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to
> > say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret
> > Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
> > But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter
> > could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in
> > it....
> But they didn't *all* say he was lying across the window sill, correct?
Fischer testified that he couldn't have seen as much of the man if the window hadn't been wide open, or almost wide open. And he said that the man was l(a)ying down, though he did not say, true, if he was lying down across the sill or parallel to the sill. And Mrs W said the man was standing up leaning out the window, which of course would mean that his body was stretched across the window sill.
> If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more
> than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness
> statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the
> single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular
> matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
> You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the
> effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth
> floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a
> thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had,
> say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller
> number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these
> four witnesses you've named were all over the place.
Brennan, Fischer, & Walther have him stretched out in a funny way, whether across the sill or behind it. I'd say they were in the same place, watching the same man effectively drawing attention to himself.
In his same-day
> affidavit, Robert Edwards said the man was on the fifth floor, and he
> didn't say which window, although he did mention the boxes. There is also
> nothing in the affidavit about the shooter lying across the sill. In his
> WC testimony he said sixth floor, and again mentioned the boxes, and this
> time he did say that it was the very last window at the corner of the
> building.
And he still maintained, like Fischer, that the window was wide open....
And there is still no mention of him lying across the sill.
> > > I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just talking
> > > about the typical random variations in witness claims and recollections,
> > > which is to be expected
> > Actually, it's just the opposite. I was talking about the *similarity* in
> > the observations of Brennan & Fischer. Each saw someone sitting or lying
> > in or near the window in an odd way.
> Ok.
> > > and you're only talking about two witnesses,
> > There were very few witnesses to this guy *before* the shooting. Only
> > four, in all, I think--Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, & Mrs. Walther.
> What about Arnold Rowland?
> > And
> > they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an odd
> > way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked
> > that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in
> > among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that
> > the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands
> > extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to
> > say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret
> > Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
> > But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter
> > could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in
> > it....
> But they didn't *all* say he was lying across the window sill, correct?
> If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more
> than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness
> statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the
> single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular
> matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
> You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the
> effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth
> floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a
> thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had,
> say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller
> number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these
> four witnesses you've named were all over the place. In his same-day
> affidavit, Robert Edwards said the man was on the fifth floor, and he
> didn't say which window, although he did mention the boxes. There is also
> nothing in the affidavit about the shooter lying across the sill. In his
> WC testimony he said sixth floor, and again mentioned the boxes, and this
> time he did say that it was the very last window at the corner of the
> building. And there is still no mention of him lying across the sill.
A slight amendment, John. Counsel read Edwards his affidavit, including his mention of the "window wide open all the way", & Edwards let that stand.
A few pages earlier, Edwards testifies that he could see the man "from the waist on" (p203)! How could that be? Note that the 5th-floor witnesses at their windows (Trask p448) are looking out, & only their heads & shoulders can be seen. In order for their waists to be seen, too, they would either have to be standing up or leaning out through the window.
And Edwards says the man's "hair was rather short" (11/22 aff.) Which means the man wasn't standing--Edwards could see his head, too....
Well since you are the percent king, I have a question for you. What percent of the total witness of the 3 hundred something that was not called to testify? What percentage that was called were not asked about what direction they thought the shots came from? What percentage of the witnesses said that there was more than 3 shots? What was the percentage of eyewitnesses FBI statements were used instead of being called? What percentage is the total number that thought the shots came from the dep who actually saw the shooter?
> In article <506d10b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 11:05 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>> > In article <506b55e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>> >>> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just >> >>> talking
>> >>> about the typical random variations in witness claims and >> >>> recollections,
>> >>> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
>> >>> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
>> >>> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
>> >>> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots. >> >>> I
>> >> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
>> >> Now you're saying 76%?
>> > Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90%
>> > regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came >> > from
>> > a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot
>> > sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how >> > many
>> > people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
>> No, you never said 76% before.
> Bull. You're afraid to look in the archives. I have said many times
> for the past decade that more than 76% of the witnesses said they heard
> three shots.
>> You always said 90% no matter what the
>> issue.
> Bull. You yet again are claiming I said something different from what I
> actually said, just like you frequently do with most of the other posters
> here. You are obviously not trustworthy in your claims on any issue, even
> the JFK assassination. You keep claiming that other posters here said
> things they never said, and then absolutely refuse to admit your mistakes
> even after you're corrected. How many mistakes have you made about the
> assassination which you also refuse to admit?
> I never once said that more than 90% of the witnesses said there were
> three shots. Never. So no, I do not give that figure "no matter what the
> issue." I have given that approximate figure for a different issue than
> the number of shots, as you ought to know perfectly well by now. And no
> other poster in this newsgroup seems to be confused as to which issue that
> is, except for you. Oh yes, a couple of other posters have *disagreed*
> with my claims, but neither of them claimed I was talking about a
> different issue than I was actually talking about. You are literally the
> only poster here who has done that.
> I have said that more than 90% of all witnesses who named a specific
> direction for the shots named only that direction. That's a different
> issue from the percentage who named the number of shots regardless of
> direction.
>> 90% of fish are Jewish. Whatever.
>> You got caught so you are backing down.
> No, you've gotten caught, yet again, claiming I said something I've never
> once said, and in addition claiming I never said something else I've in
> fact said several times. You're afraid to look through the threads and
> the archives to see what I really said, so you resort to making up your
> own versions of what I've said. You are by far the worst poster in this
> newsgroup in that regard, and others besides me have said things similar
> to that about you too. Then you compound the problem by refusing to admit
> your mistakes, no matter how obvious they are, even after they are pointed
> out to you. This raises the question of how many mistakes you've made
> about the JFK assassination as well, which you also refuse to admit. If
> you're willing to go so far as to make up things other posters never said,
> and then on top of that refusing to admit your mistakes no matter how
> obvious they are, then obviously you might be willing to do that with the
> assassination too.
> Starting early last month I was willing to give you another chance,
> Anthony. But you're still doing the same things you did years ago. You
> still continue to claim I said things I've never said. You still refuse
> to apologize and admit your errors, even after they are pointed out to
> you. Had our positions been reversed, I would have almost certainly
> apologized and admitted my error as soon as I first saw you correct me,
> if, for example, I had claimed that you had said that JFK had his fists up
> already by Z225, which is of course something you've never said. But you
> did say that I've claimed that, even though I never have. And you still
> refuse to apologize to me and admit that you made a mistake. I do not see
> why any reasonable person should take anything you say on any subject
> seriously until you start being more open about admitting your obvious
> mistakes. I'm willing to admit mine; why can't you show me the same
> courtesy? For example, I'm freely admitting right now that I had Mary
> Woodward in the wrong place, and she certainly wasn't talking about the
> fence, although she also didn't mean the TSBD either. See? But that's
> not a mistake I made about what you said, that's a mistake I made about
> her. I don't generally claim that you've said things you've never said.
> But you claim that about me every day.
> And you almost never apologize for it and admit your mistakes.
> Yet again I challenge you to quote me verbatim saying that JFK already had
> his fists up by Z225. I have never claimed that. Could you please admit
> that I've never said that? Thank you.
seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:44:07 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <838fc80e-6544-49be-b398-59c8f0361535@googlegroups.com>,
> > dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> > > And > > > they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an > > > odd > > > way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked > > > that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in > > > among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that > > > the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands > > > extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to > > > say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret > > > Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
> > > But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter > > > could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in > > > it....
> > But they didn't *all* say he was lying across the window sill, correct?
> Fischer testified that he couldn't have seen as much of the man if the > window hadn't been wide open, or almost wide open. And he said that the > man was l(a)ying down, though he did not say, true, if he was lying down > across the sill or parallel to the sill. And Mrs W said the man was > standing up leaning out the window, which of course would mean that his > body was stretched across the window sill.
> > If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more > > than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness > > statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the > > single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular > > matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
> > You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the > > effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth > > floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a > > thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had, > > say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller > > number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these > > four witnesses you've named were all over the place.
> Brennan, Fischer, & Walther have him stretched out in a funny way, whether > across the sill or behind it. I'd say they were in the same place, > watching the same man effectively drawing attention to himself.
That *may* have been what he was doing, but we have no possible way of knowing for certain that that was his actual intention. And this still strikes me as not necessarily being any more significant than the typical random variations that would be expected from witnesses anyway.
I don't recall Arnold Rowland saying that the man with the rifle ever leaned out the window in any fashion at all, and if I'm remembering correctly, which I may not be, I don't think Amos Euins said anything like that either.
> > In his same-day > > affidavit, Robert Edwards said the man was on the fifth floor, and he > > didn't say which window, although he did mention the boxes. There is also > > nothing in the affidavit about the shooter lying across the sill. In his > > WC testimony he said sixth floor, and again mentioned the boxes, and this > > time he did say that it was the very last window at the corner of the > > building.
> And he still maintained, like Fischer, that the window was wide open....
That may be. I still don't see how any of this proves that no shots were fired from the SN window, because we just don't have enough of a consensus on this from a large enough number of witnesses.
In article <732060b1-a7ba-45b2-b387-ddf935ad73c5@googlegroups.com>,
seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
> A slight amendment, John. Counsel read Edwards his affidavit, including > his mention of the "window wide open all the way", & Edwards let that > stand.
> A few pages earlier, Edwards testifies that he could see the man "from the > waist on" (p203)! How could that be? Note that the 5th-floor witnesses > at their windows (Trask p448) are looking out, & only their heads & > shoulders can be seen. In order for their waists to be seen, too, they > would either have to be standing up or leaning out through the window.
> And Edwards says the man's "hair was rather short" (11/22 aff.) Which > means the man wasn't standing--Edwards could see his head, too....
If he was standing right up against the window I would think both his waist and his head could be seen, but he'd have to be very close to the window for that, obviously. I still don't see how this proves no shots were fired from the easternmost window. Wasn't Edwards talking about a time before the shots were fired?
>> Thus do we have Brennan explaining Event A. But does he have any
>> corroboration? Or did he concoct this scenario simply to account for his
>> uncanny observational powers? In fact, there was at least one other >> Event
>> A witness--Ronald Fischer. In the latter's 11/22/63 statement, he said
>> that "there was a man on the fifth floor... laying [sic] down there or in
>> a funny position anyway." (CE 2003 p23), just before the motorcade >> arrived
>> in Dealey (v6p193). Certainly, Brennan too had the man in a "funny
>> position".
>> Fischer admits uncertainty about what he was actually seeing. He seems,
>> understandably, somewhat puzzled. Was the man sitting sideways on the
>> sill, or brickwork, or lying across it or...? We'll never know. But it
>> was an odd enough sight to draw the attention of several witnesses,
>> including Fischer's co-worker, Bob Edwards, who actually spotted the man
>> before Fischer did, but who was less forthcoming in his description.
>> Edwards apparently said only (according to Fischer), "He looks like he's
>> uncomfortable." (v6p193)
>> In his original statement, Fischer said that he could see that the man >> was
>> wearing an "open-neck shirt". In his testimony, he said that he could >> see
>> the man "from the middle of the chest up" (p198). Deputy Sheriff C.L.
>> Lewis added that Fischer said the man wore "sport shirt and slacks"
>> (v19p526). Fischer himself never mentioned "slacks" elsewhere, but, yes,
>> that would in fact tally with Brennan's "from his hips up"! Brennan and
>> Fischer saw the same man, and saw more of him than would seem possible.
>> How could this be? Fischer makes explicit the connection which Brennan
>> leaves implicit: "The window was open almost all the way open, if not >> all
>> the way open.... Or I wouldn't have been able to see the cases and see
>> past the top of his head had it not been... and his shoulders" (p199).
>> Had the window not been wide open, Fischer says, he would not have been
>> able to take in so much--shirt, chest, slacks. And if the man Brennan >> had
>> seen was in a part-open window, *he* would not have been able to say,
>> fairly credibly, "165-175, 5-foot-10". And if there had been a box in >> the
>> window, the man would not have been able to do his "funny" contortions.
>> (Fischer never mentions seeing a box in the window.)
>> Certainly, an assassin could have shot from either a half-open depository
>> window or a wide-open one. But Event A--scarcely a minute earlier, at >> the
>> same window--was possible only at a wide-open window, with no box on the
>> sill. Which means that Event B--the actual shooting--also had to have
>> taken place at a wide-open window, with no box on the sill. Which means
>> that no shooting came from the sixth-floor "sniper's nest" window.
>> Of course some shots did come from higher above. But I don't think it was
>> the assassin's window alone. There had to be shots fired from behind. But
>> when you line up the actual position of the limo with the assassin >> window,
>> the bullet trajectory is impossibly wrong. From the assassin's window the
>> head shot would have existed the left side of the head and not the right.
>> Don't you think?
> I am not that familiar with how Elm curved down to the underpass.
It is not only a curve. It the point of the head shot the limo was in a right-turn curve. Which would have placed the head at a right angle from the window. Compounding the angle is the actual road angle of the limo. Adding both to the trajectory. the bullet path could not align with the sniper's nest. It aligns with the Dal-tex building, which IS DIRECTLY behind Elm Street. The Dep is off to the right side. And the shot from the dep could only be fired to the right side of the head.
Therefore if the shot was fired from the sniper's nest, it would be at such an angle the trajectory would have exited the left side of the head and not the right. The right angle trajectory causing the bullet to exit the right side of the head would HAVE TO BE FIRED DIRECTLY FROM BEHIND and including these angles the trajectory does not line up with the sniper's nest.
> In article <732060b1-a7ba-45b2-b387-ddf935ad73c5@googlegroups.com>,
> seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A slight amendment, John. Counsel read Edwards his affidavit, including
>> his mention of the "window wide open all the way", & Edwards let that
>> stand.
>> A few pages earlier, Edwards testifies that he could see the man "from the
>> waist on" (p203)! How could that be? Note that the 5th-floor witnesses
>> at their windows (Trask p448) are looking out, & only their heads &
>> shoulders can be seen. In order for their waists to be seen, too, they
>> would either have to be standing up or leaning out through the window.
>> And Edwards says the man's "hair was rather short" (11/22 aff.) Which
>> means the man wasn't standing--Edwards could see his head, too....
> If he was standing right up against the window I would think both his
> waist and his head could be seen, but he'd have to be very close to the
> window for that, obviously. I still don't see how this proves no shots
> were fired from the easternmost window. Wasn't Edwards talking about a
> time before the shots were fired?
The window was only open halfway. Some time test it yourself with an opening exactly the same to see if someone can see both your waist and your head at the same time.
> In article <fcd9563b-c61f-46e6-9843-1bc4d416f80c@googlegroups.com>,
> seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:44:07 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <838fc80e-6544-49be-b398-59c8f0361535@googlegroups.com>,
>>> dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> And
>>>> they all seemed to be drawn to the suspect because he was acting in an
>>>> odd
>>>> way. Edwards seemed to spot him first, but only testified that he joked
>>>> that the guy "was hiding from [someone] since he was up there crowded in
>>>> among the boxes...." (v6p204). Mrs. Walther told the FBI (12/4/63) that
>>>> the guy was "standing up leaning out the window with both his hands
>>>> extended outside the window ledge." I have to dismiss what she went on to
>>>> say because I doubt that anyone would be brandishing a weapon with Secret
>>>> Service men coming up Houston with a direct look at the TSBD windows.
>>>> But all four found something very strange about this guy. And the latter
>>>> could not be lying across the window sill if there had been a box in
>>>> it....
>>> But they didn't *all* say he was lying across the window sill, correct?
>> Fischer testified that he couldn't have seen as much of the man if the
>> window hadn't been wide open, or almost wide open. And he said that the
>> man was l(a)ying down, though he did not say, true, if he was lying down
>> across the sill or parallel to the sill. And Mrs W said the man was
>> standing up leaning out the window, which of course would mean that his
>> body was stretched across the window sill.
> Ok...
>>> If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more
>>> than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness
>>> statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the
>>> single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular
>>> matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
>>> You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the
>>> effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth
>>> floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a
>>> thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had,
>>> say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller
>>> number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these
>>> four witnesses you've named were all over the place.
>> Brennan, Fischer, & Walther have him stretched out in a funny way, whether
>> across the sill or behind it. I'd say they were in the same place,
>> watching the same man effectively drawing attention to himself.
> That *may* have been what he was doing, but we have no possible way of
> knowing for certain that that was his actual intention. And this still
> strikes me as not necessarily being any more significant than the
> typical random variations that would be expected from witnesses anyway.
> I don't recall Arnold Rowland saying that the man with the rifle ever
> leaned out the window in any fashion at all, and if I'm remembering
> correctly, which I may not be, I don't think Amos Euins said anything
> like that either.
>>> In his same-day
>>> affidavit, Robert Edwards said the man was on the fifth floor, and he
>>> didn't say which window, although he did mention the boxes. There is also
>>> nothing in the affidavit about the shooter lying across the sill. In his
>>> WC testimony he said sixth floor, and again mentioned the boxes, and this
>>> time he did say that it was the very last window at the corner of the
>>> building.
>> And he still maintained, like Fischer, that the window was wide open....
> That may be. I still don't see how any of this proves that no shots
> were fired from the SN window, because we just don't have enough of a
> consensus on this from a large enough number of witnesses.
Never rely on witnesses. 90% of witnesses are idiots.
Look for the scientific evidence.
> > Fischer testified that he couldn't have seen as much of the man if the
> > window hadn't been wide open, or almost wide open. And he said that the
> > man was l(a)ying down, though he did not say, true, if he was lying down
> > across the sill or parallel to the sill. And Mrs W said the man was
> > standing up leaning out the window, which of course would mean that his
> > body was stretched across the window sill.
> Ok...
> > > If so, then my point is still valid: we are talking about nothing more
> > > than the expected, and typical, random variations in individual witness
> > > statements, especially when the witnesses number in no more than the
> > > single-digits, in which there is no clear consensus on a particular
> > > matter, such as whether he was or wasn't lying across the window sill.
> > > You ended your original article in this thread with a statement to the
> > > effect that these witness claims show that no shooting came from the sixth
> > > floor SN window, and I do not see how these witnesses establish such a
> > > thing with anything even remotely close to certainty. Now, if we had,
> > > say, a minimum of ten witnesses all naming the same window, with a smaller
> > > number naming a different window, that would be much firmer. But these
> > > four witnesses you've named were all over the place.
> > Brennan, Fischer, & Walther have him stretched out in a funny way, whether
> > across the sill or behind it. I'd say they were in the same place,
> > watching the same man effectively drawing attention to himself.
> That *may* have been what he was doing, but we have no possible way of
> knowing for certain that that was his actual intention.
Agreed. It hit me recently that the guy was *too* obvious almost for a decoy or distractor or attention-getter. But what else he might have been doing is anyone's guess. Even the witnesses at the time couldn't fathom him....
dcw
And this still
> strikes me as not necessarily being any more significant than the
> typical random variations that would be expected from witnesses anyway.
> I don't recall Arnold Rowland saying that the man with the rifle ever
> leaned out the window in any fashion at all
According to Rowland (a) the man was not even that near a window, but back from one, & (b) Rowland said he was behind one of the two wide-open end windows on the 6th-floor's *west* side; in his testimony he added he saw an elderly Black man in the "nest" at about the same time, 12:14-15. I don't pay much attention to Rowland because if he did see people up there it was 15 minutes beforehand, but even then no one else's testimony tallies with him. Even his wife did not see anything.
dcw
, and if I'm remembering
> correctly, which I may not be, I don't think Amos Euins said anything
> like that either.
Euins looked up only after the shooting started.
Brennan/Fischer/Edwards/Walther all looked up *before*--and Brennan was the only one apparently who looked up before, during, & after....
> > A slight amendment, John. Counsel read Edwards his affidavit, including
> > his mention of the "window wide open all the way", & Edwards let that
> > stand.
> > A few pages earlier, Edwards testifies that he could see the man "from the
> > waist on" (p203)! How could that be? Note that the 5th-floor witnesses
> > at their windows (Trask p448) are looking out, & only their heads &
> > shoulders can be seen. In order for their waists to be seen, too, they
> > would either have to be standing up or leaning out through the window.
> > And Edwards says the man's "hair was rather short" (11/22 aff.) Which
> > means the man wasn't standing--Edwards could see his head, too....
> If he was standing right up against the window I would think both his
> waist and his head could be seen, but he'd have to be very close to the
> window for that, obviously.
And Fischer said he was l(a)ying, & Brennan said he was sitting. I still can't quite see what position the guy was in, for his head/shoulders/waist-hips to be seen. Even kneeling at the window wouldn't get you that--I see a picture of Jarman kneeling at the fifth-floor window, but his waist/hips wouldn't be visible. It baffled science then; it baffles me now....
dcw
I still don't see how this proves no shots
> were fired from the easternmost window. Wasn't Edwards talking about a
> time before the shots were fired?
*Just* before. In fact, Fischer & Mrs. W's attention was switched from the guy to the motorcade as the limo turned the corner onto Houston.
Edwards of course passed the watching duty on to Fischer just before *that*.... I realize that even in those, what, 20-30 seconds before the shooting, the shooter could have slapped the box on the sill, but, as Fischer noted, he, Fischer, could not have seen as much of the guy as he did if the window had been only half open, & I believe the Weaver Polaroid shows the "nest" window already at half "mast" as the limo rounds the corner, the moment that Fischer & Walther switched their respective attention....
> Well since you are the percent king, I have a question for you. What
> percent of the total witness of the 3 hundred something that was not
> called to testify? What percentage that was called were not asked about
Well, it depends on how you define witnesses. At the time of the shooting there were hundreds of people, including people in buildings, people in the motorcade, spectators on the street.
Josiah Thompson started with 190 total witnesses and then narrowed that down to 172 witnesses reporting.
136 reported hearing 3 shots, which is 79%.
12 - 2 shots
6 - 4 shots
3 - more than 4 shots
10 - 2 or 3 shots
5 - 3 or more shots
> what direction they thought the shots came from? What percentage of the
Out of 64 who specified a direction,
33 - knoll
25 - TSBD
2 - east side of Houston
4 - two different directions.
There are no statistics on how many witnesses who were threatened to say only 3 shots or told not to say grassy knoll.
> witnesses said that there was more than 3 shots? What was the percentage
> of eyewitnesses FBI statements were used instead of being called? What
> percentage is the total number that thought the shots came from the dep
> who actually saw the shooter?
>>> On 10/3/2012 11:05 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>> In article <506b55e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>>> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not sure I'm with you on this, Donald. You're mainly just
>>>>>> talking
>>>>>> about the typical random variations in witness claims and
>>>>>> recollections,
>>>>>> which is to be expected, and you're only talking about two witnesses,
>>>>>> which is nothing at all like a convergence on a single claim by the
>>>>>> majority of a number of witnesses that is a good deal larger, such as
>>>>>> c.76% of c.216 witnesses saying they heard no more than three shots.
>>>>>> I
>>>>> Hey, man. What the Hell happened to your cookie cutter 90%?
>>>>> Now you're saying 76%?
>>>> Anthony, don't you know how to use the Internet? I said more than 90%
>>>> regarding a different issue, how many people said all the shots came
>>>> from
>>>> a single direction, and how many people said nothing about any shot
>>>> sounding closer or farther than the others. The c.76% is about how
>>>> many
>>>> people said they heard three shots. See the difference?
>>> No, you never said 76% before.
>> Bull. You're afraid to look in the archives. I have said many times
>> for the past decade that more than 76% of the witnesses said they heard
>> three shots.
>>> You always said 90% no matter what the
>>> issue.
>> Bull. You yet again are claiming I said something different from what I
>> actually said, just like you frequently do with most of the other posters
>> here. You are obviously not trustworthy in your claims on any issue, even
>> the JFK assassination. You keep claiming that other posters here said
>> things they never said, and then absolutely refuse to admit your mistakes
>> even after you're corrected. How many mistakes have you made about the
>> assassination which you also refuse to admit?
>> I never once said that more than 90% of the witnesses said there were
>> three shots. Never. So no, I do not give that figure "no matter what the
>> issue." I have given that approximate figure for a different issue than
>> the number of shots, as you ought to know perfectly well by now. And no
>> other poster in this newsgroup seems to be confused as to which issue that
>> is, except for you. Oh yes, a couple of other posters have *disagreed*
>> with my claims, but neither of them claimed I was talking about a
>> different issue than I was actually talking about. You are literally the
>> only poster here who has done that.
>> I have said that more than 90% of all witnesses who named a specific
>> direction for the shots named only that direction. That's a different
>> issue from the percentage who named the number of shots regardless of
>> direction.
>>> 90% of fish are Jewish. Whatever.
>>> You got caught so you are backing down.
>> No, you've gotten caught, yet again, claiming I said something I've never
>> once said, and in addition claiming I never said something else I've in
>> fact said several times. You're afraid to look through the threads and
>> the archives to see what I really said, so you resort to making up your
>> own versions of what I've said. You are by far the worst poster in this
>> newsgroup in that regard, and others besides me have said things similar
>> to that about you too. Then you compound the problem by refusing to admit
>> your mistakes, no matter how obvious they are, even after they are pointed
>> out to you. This raises the question of how many mistakes you've made
>> about the JFK assassination as well, which you also refuse to admit. If
>> you're willing to go so far as to make up things other posters never said,
>> and then on top of that refusing to admit your mistakes no matter how
>> obvious they are, then obviously you might be willing to do that with the
>> assassination too.
>> Starting early last month I was willing to give you another chance,
>> Anthony. But you're still doing the same things you did years ago. You
>> still continue to claim I said things I've never said. You still refuse
>> to apologize and admit your errors, even after they are pointed out to
>> you. Had our positions been reversed, I would have almost certainly
>> apologized and admitted my error as soon as I first saw you correct me,
>> if, for example, I had claimed that you had said that JFK had his fists up
>> already by Z225, which is of course something you've never said. But you
>> did say that I've claimed that, even though I never have. And you still
>> refuse to apologize to me and admit that you made a mistake. I do not see
>> why any reasonable person should take anything you say on any subject
>> seriously until you start being more open about admitting your obvious
>> mistakes. I'm willing to admit mine; why can't you show me the same
>> courtesy? For example, I'm freely admitting right now that I had Mary
>> Woodward in the wrong place, and she certainly wasn't talking about the
>> fence, although she also didn't mean the TSBD either. See? But that's
>> not a mistake I made about what you said, that's a mistake I made about
>> her. I don't generally claim that you've said things you've never said.
>> But you claim that about me every day.
>> And you almost never apologize for it and admit your mistakes.
>> Yet again I challenge you to quote me verbatim saying that JFK already had
>> his fists up by Z225. I have never claimed that. Could you please admit
>> that I've never said that? Thank you.
