Who fired the shots?

[Research]

The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
came from the knoll. The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
dep got into the report. But as I found out there were many others who
were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
from the knoll.

Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators. There were FBI
reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.

[John Reagor King]

In article <504cadc4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
> came from the knoll.

Which person named "Willis," whether that was their first, middle, or
last name was on the knoll area?

As for the Newmans (plural), Bill Newman said the shots came from
directly behind him, and that's a bit of a stretch to call that the
"knoll" since that is usually defined by most people as the area more or
less to his right. But I can still concede that one to you, if you'd
like, because he certainly didn't think they came from the depository.
What is interesting is that he didn't name any other direction, as if he
thought all the shots came from the same location, not just some of
them. His wife, Gayle Newman, did not really seem to know where the
shots came from; at least she did not name any direction in her same-day
affidavit or in her FBI report two days later or in her testimony at the
Shaw Trial in 1969. I've seen the same-day interview with the Newmans
several times, as well as at least two more from years later, and if she
gave an opinion in those as to what direction or directions she thought
the shots came from, I do not now recall it.

> The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
> these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
> dep got into the report.

That is an extraordinary claim, if by "report" you mean the 26 WC
volumes. The actual "Report" that is only a small part of that contains
no testimonies at all. But the WC printed plenty of testimonies from
people who thought all the shots came from the knoll.

> But as I found out there were many others who
> were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
> Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
> from the knoll.

Yes, and their testimonies are indeed printed in what I'm guessing
you're calling the "report."

> Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
> the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators.

Oh, "many" of the Depository employees said they saw Oswald just minutes
before the shooting? Please name these employees for us, and tell us
how many minutes before the shooting they claimed to have last seen
Oswald.

> There were FBI
> reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.

There were many FBI reports that were part of the WC findings. Would
you like me to show some of them to you?

JRK

[bigdog]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
>
> came from the knoll.

They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
were right. We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
on the sixth floor of the TSBD, spent shells at the very location he saw
the shooter, and a rifle found on that floor that matched not only the
shells but the two recovered bullets. There are no eyewitnesses who saw a
shooter on the knoll or any physical evidence there was such a shooter.

> The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
>
> these testimonies.

They didn't avoid them, they evaluated them and found they were
incompatible with the hard evidence.

> Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
>

> dep got into the report. Those were the only testimonies corroborated by
> the physcial evidence.

> But as I found out there were many others who
>
> were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
>
> Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
>
> from the knoll.
>

Why do you believe the people whose accounts are at odds with the physical
evidence and dismiss those whose accounts are compatible with the physical
evidence?

>
>
> Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
>
> the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators.

How many minutes? Two? Fifteen? Thirty?

> There were FBI
>
> reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.

The reports are in the 26 volumes testimony and exhibits.

[markusp]

On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
> wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
> were right.

Certainly these people were truthful in their observations and what they
heard. A second person firing from the rear would likely have been
perceived as emanating from the direction of the TSBD. This building had
been sealed by police, and naturally the witnesses to the murder in DP
were aware of that. So, when asked about the direction they believed the
shots came from, we could expect them to say the direction of the TSBD,
and not (for example) the direction of the Dal-Tex building.

> We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
> on the sixth floor of the TSBD,

Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?

> spent shells at the very location he saw
> the shooter,

Did he see the shooter, or a person holding a gun?

> and a rifle found on that floor that matched not only the
> shells but the two recovered bullets.

Two? CE399 is one. What other bullet was recovered?

> There are no eyewitnesses who saw a
> shooter on the knoll or any physical evidence there was such a shooter.

Does the frontal throat wound as described by Dr. Perry as a "penetrating" wound count?

~Mark

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3eb29ed9-fe53-432e...@googlegroups.com:

> They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
> wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
> were right. We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a
> gunman on the sixth floor of the TSBD, spent shells at the very
> location he saw the shooter, and a rifle found on that floor that
> matched not only the shells but the two recovered bullets. There are
> no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any physical
> evidence there was such a shooter.

I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
(let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
help) but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.

[bigdog]

On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>
> > They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
>
> > wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
>
> > were right.
>
>
>
> Certainly these people were truthful in their observations and what they
>
> heard. A second person firing from the rear would likely have been
>
> perceived as emanating from the direction of the TSBD. This building had
>
> been sealed by police, and naturally the witnesses to the murder in DP
>
> were aware of that. So, when asked about the direction they believed the
>
> shots came from, we could expect them to say the direction of the TSBD,
>
> and not (for example) the direction of the Dal-Tex building.
>

If only there was a shred of evidence that a second person fired.

>
>
>
>
> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>
> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>
>
>
> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?
>

HUH???

>
>
>
>
> > spent shells at the very location he saw
>
> > the shooter,
>
>
>
> Did he see the shooter, or a person holding a gun?
>

You really are stretching. He did see the last shot fired.

>
>
>
>
> > and a rifle found on that floor that matched not only the
>
> > shells but the two recovered bullets.
>
>
>
> Two? CE399 is one. What other bullet was recovered?
>

The fragmented bullet found in the limo by the SS that evening.

>
>
>
>
> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a
>
> > shooter on the knoll or any physical evidence there was such a shooter.
>
>
>
> Does the frontal throat wound as described by Dr. Perry as a "penetrating" wound count?
>

No because he said it could have been an entrance or an exit. You continue
to cling to this silly idea that the throat wound was an entrance despite
the fact you can't offer even a remotely plausible explaination for what
happened to the bullet.

[ss679x]

The DC program ITTC did a test shot from the GK position and determined
that Jackie would have been blown away along with JFK with the Z313 shot.
They therefore seemed to think they had debunked the GK position. They
used a Winchester rifle and the kind of ammo they thought a sniper would
use. :-0

It is documented in the Zapruder film that Jackie's head was mere inches
from JFK's when the fatal headshot hit. It was, in fact, a miracle that
she was not killed too. However, unlike the ITTC, the bullet of the Z313
shot fragmented and Jackie survived.

[John Reagor King]

In article <9Qu3s.662235$Xo4.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com>,

slats <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
> (let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
> help)

Not without help from Dumbledore, at least. Sidealong apparition.
"Strangely" none of the closest witnesses said that they heard any shot
that was louder and closer to them than any other, and this imaginary
gunman would have been helplessly visible to them before, during, and
after firing. And this would have to be the dumbest sniper ever to set
up shot less than 30 feet from a man standing on a pedestal with a movie
camera.

Sitzman did hear a loud *crack* from over there, but as she whirled and
looked, it turned out not to be the sniper disapparating, but instead
someone dropping a soda bottle right after they saw the President's head
explode open.

> but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
> know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.

Interesting that no one saw him eating lunch at the time. Even more
riveting that he told one person he had curtain rods in the bag, but
told another that his lunch was in the bag.

Perhaps a very long kielbasa sausage? It could be eaten, and yet also
be sturdy enough to hold up curtains.

(He only ate a few inches off one end at lunch, and was naturally going
to go back to his pad after work and hang up the curtains on the
sausage, and give the curtain rods that were already in his room holding
up the curtains to Earlene Roberts, lovely matron that she was, but
suddenly changed his mind, changed shirts, and rushed back out again.)

Oh, sorry, C&C warning.

JRK

[John Reagor King]

In article <15019ffd-3c91-4d0c...@googlegroups.com>,

markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
> > wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
> > were right.
>
> Certainly these people were truthful in their observations and what they
> heard.

If "truthful" = "honest recollection," I would think so, at least in
most cases.

> A second person firing from the rear would likely have been
> perceived as emanating from the direction of the TSBD.

One would think a first person firing from the rear would also be
perceived as such. Trouble is, nearly all the witnesses who said shots
came from the knoll also seemed to believe that that was the first
person, and indeed the only person, firing.

> This building had
> been sealed by police, and naturally the witnesses to the murder in DP
> were aware of that. So, when asked about the direction they believed the
> shots came from, we could expect them to say the direction of the TSBD,
> and not (for example) the direction of the Dal-Tex building.

I do not follow your logic here. Months and years after the
assassination, plenty of people still continued to say that they had
thought all the shots to have come from the knoll and from nowhere else,
so which buildings were and weren't sealed by police seems to have made
no difference. But does saying all the shots came from the knoll and
nowhere else support a conclusion of multiple gunmen in multiple
locations?

> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>
> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?

Well, your mileage may vary, but when shots are fired, and there's only
one location where any witnesses see anyone holding a gun (no witnesses
said they saw anyone holding a gun on the knoll, until many years later
for the first time ever) the natural assumption on the part of the
reasonable person might be a higher probability that a man seen holding
a gun is also a "gunman."

> > spent shells at the very location he saw
> > the shooter,
>
> Did he see the shooter, or a person holding a gun?

Several people, not quite all of them male, saw a man holding a rifle,
or at least some long narrow object, on one of the upper floors of one
building. Not one person who is proven to have actually been there ever
said they saw a man holding a rifle in any location other than that
building until Jean Hill "broke her silence" approximately a
quarter-century later. (Gordon Arnold, rather obviously, doesn't count,
since the earliest claim of him being there dates from 15 years after
the assassination.)

> > and a rifle found on that floor that matched not only the
> > shells but the two recovered bullets.
>
> Two? CE399 is one. What other bullet was recovered?

I'd like to know that too. ;-)

> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a
> > shooter on the knoll or any physical evidence there was such a shooter.
>
> Does the frontal throat wound as described by Dr. Perry as a "penetrating"
> wound count?

Rather obviously not. You are being sly, acting as if you "didn't know
before today" that the only reason Perry initially described that as an
entrance was because he didn't learn about the other bullet hole in the
back until the following day. Praytell, did Perry continue to call that
an entrance after 11-23-63?

[fatol...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:

The only person I can name with certainty is William Greer. He fired at least 1 shot, and a study of the Zapruder and Nix films will reveal this fact. The Zapruder film has been altered to hide Greer's shot, but not perfectly. At frame 304, which is about when he fired, if you zoom in over Kellerman's head and adjust the contrast and brightness, you can see where the gun was painted out. This video of mine shows that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19rTsYSLIxY&feature=plcp . In frame 318, you can see the blurred arm up in the same position, but you can see on the Nix film that his arm actually wasn't up at this point. My theory is that the editor wanted to leave a clue for posterity that would expose his own fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgwpOKRTdg&feature=plcp . The next surest shot came from the overpass. That's where Curry immediately told his men to look. That's where motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis thought the shots came from. And that's where you can see a cloud of smoke drifting from in the Weigman film. When Hargis got there, although he did not say so, there was a man who looks like a Dallas PD detective with what looks like a gun butt propped up beside him. I think he fired the shot that hit JFK at Zapruder frame 322. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp Beyond that, I think there were probably 2 shooters from behind, maybe even Oswald! And there could have been 1 on the knoll, too.

[Anthony Marsh]

Gary Mack admitted that he put Jackie in the wrong position and an
exiting bullet would not have hit her at Z-313.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. Why don't you pick up the WC report and read it sometime?

The WC report stated:

"At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical
questions and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could
account for the President's wounds. He stated that a single bullet
could have caused the President's wounds by entering through the throat,
striking the spine, and being deflected upward with the point of exit
being through the head. This would have accounted for the two wounds he
observed, the hole in the front of the neck and the large opening in the
skull."

[curtjester1]

Everyone knows by now, it was Miss Scarlett, in the lunchroom, with
the Euins seen, very leaded pipe.

CJ

[ss679x]

And yet do you not cling to the silly idea that the fatal headshot at Z313 that fragmented and the 'magic bullet' that went through two people and supposedly ended up in nearly-pristine condition both came from the same ammo and the same gun?

Ironically, the ITTC tests may have demonstrated that the bullets LHO was supposed to have used were probably not used in the fatal headshot because none of the test bullets fragmented.

[bigdog]

More importantly, Jackie's head was not along the line of fire between the sniper's nest and JFK's head. She would not have been hit by a bullet passing through JFK's head. Depending on where the imaginary GK shooter is placed, her head could have been on the opposite side of JFK's head from that shooter. However, the best argument against a shooter anywhere on the GK is that a bullet entering the right side of JFK's head should have exited somewhere along the left side of his head, yet there is no indication that there is any such exit wound. Not photos, no x-rays, and no witnesses either at Parkland or Bethesda who reported seeing such a wound.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:26:33 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>
> > The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
>
> >
>
> > came from the knoll. The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
>
> >
>
> > these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
>
> >
>
> > dep got into the report. But as I found out there were many others who
>
> >
>
> > were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
>
> >
>
> > Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
>
> >
>
> > from the knoll.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
>
> >
>
> > the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators. There were FBI
>
> >
>
> > reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.
>
>
>
> The only person I can name with certainty is William Greer. He fired at least 1 shot, and a study of the Zapruder and Nix films will reveal this fact.

Must be Golden Oldies week if we are resurrecting this turkey.

> The Zapruder film has been altered to hide Greer's shot, but not perfectly. At frame 304, which is about when he fired, if you zoom in over Kellerman's head and adjust the contrast and brightness, you can see where the gun was painted out.

If it was painted out, how do you know there is a gun?

> This video of mine shows that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19rTsYSLIxY&feature=plcp . In frame 318, you can see the blurred arm up in the same position, but you can see on the Nix film that his arm actually wasn't up at this point. My theory is that the editor wanted to leave a clue for posterity that would expose his own fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgwpOKRTdg&feature=plcp .

Of course. The old the-conspirator-wanted-to-get-caught theory.

> The next surest shot came from the overpass. That's where Curry immediately told his men to look.

Is today April 1?

> That's where motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis thought the shots came from. And that's where you can see a cloud of smoke drifting from in the Weigman film. When Hargis got there, although he did not say so, there was a man who looks like a Dallas PD detective with what looks like a gun butt propped up beside him. I think he fired the shot that hit JFK at Zapruder frame 322. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp Beyond that, I think there were probably 2 shooters from behind, maybe even Oswald! And there could have been 1 on the knoll, too.

Why stop at just five shooters?

[bigdog]

Apparently you have trouble grasping that a bullet fired directly into a skull and a bullet that passes through soft tissue of two bodies and tumbling before striking any dense bone are going to come out looking vastly different. CE399 was not magic and not pristine. You continue to repeat this factoid because you have no real evidence to support your position. The ballistics testing showed that the fragmented bullet and CE399 were positively fired from the same gun and that was the same gun that fired the shells found in the sniper's nest and that was the same gun found on that same floor as the sniper's nest. Amazing that you can add 1 + 1 + 1 and arrive at an irrational number.

>
>
> Ironically, the ITTC tests may have demonstrated that the bullets LHO was supposed to have used were probably not used in the fatal headshot because none of the test bullets fragmented.

None of the test bullets hit a real skull.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one ever claimed that Jackie's head was between the rifle and JFK's
head. We are talking about a bullet exiting JFK's head and hitting Jackie
somewhere. Ignorant WC defenders claim that when a bullet hits the right
side of JFK's head it MUST exit the left side of his head and therefore
hit Jackie.

Usually they are trying to make fun of a shot from the grassy knoll so I
like to turn it around on them and remind that that their theory has JFK
hit on the right side of the head so therefore their bullet should kill
Jackie just like a grassy knoll shot. But of course the obvious factor
that they are overlooking is the exact angle of the trajectory.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/11/2012 4:25 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <15019ffd-3c91-4d0c...@googlegroups.com>,
> markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>> They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
>>> wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
>>> were right.
>>
>> Certainly these people were truthful in their observations and what they
>> heard.
>
> If "truthful" = "honest recollection," I would think so, at least in
> most cases.
>
>> A second person firing from the rear would likely have been
>> perceived as emanating from the direction of the TSBD.
>
> One would think a first person firing from the rear would also be
> perceived as such. Trouble is, nearly all the witnesses who said shots
> came from the knoll also seemed to believe that that was the first
> person, and indeed the only person, firing.
>

No. No one said that.

>> This building had
>> been sealed by police, and naturally the witnesses to the murder in DP
>> were aware of that. So, when asked about the direction they believed the
>> shots came from, we could expect them to say the direction of the TSBD,
>> and not (for example) the direction of the Dal-Tex building.
>
> I do not follow your logic here. Months and years after the
> assassination, plenty of people still continued to say that they had
> thought all the shots to have come from the knoll and from nowhere else,

No one, except your straw men.

> so which buildings were and weren't sealed by police seems to have made
> no difference. But does saying all the shots came from the knoll and
> nowhere else support a conclusion of multiple gunmen in multiple
> locations?
>
>>> We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>>> on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>>
>> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?
>
> Well, your mileage may vary, but when shots are fired, and there's only
> one location where any witnesses see anyone holding a gun (no witnesses
> said they saw anyone holding a gun on the knoll, until many years later
> for the first time ever) the natural assumption on the part of the

Oh, so now you're admitting that witnesses saw a man on the grassy knoll
holding a gun? Shame on you for caving.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/11/2012 4:23 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <9Qu3s.662235$Xo4.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com>,
> slats <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
>> (let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
>> help)
>
> Not without help from Dumbledore, at least. Sidealong apparition.
> "Strangely" none of the closest witnesses said that they heard any shot
> that was louder and closer to them than any other, and this imaginary
> gunman would have been helplessly visible to them before, during, and
> after firing. And this would have to be the dumbest sniper ever to set
> up shot less than 30 feet from a man standing on a pedestal with a movie
> camera.
>

No, he was BEHIND them and they were looking at the motorcade, not
turned around anticipating an assassin.
Black Dog Man was only a few feet in front of Zapruder and Sitzman and
they didn't report seeing HIM.

> Sitzman did hear a loud *crack* from over there, but as she whirled and
> looked, it turned out not to be the sniper disapparating, but instead
> someone dropping a soda bottle right after they saw the President's head
> explode open.
>

She heard that after the car went into the underpass. What do you hope
to gain by misrepresenting historical evidence?

>> but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
>> know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.
>
> Interesting that no one saw him eating lunch at the time. Even more
> riveting that he told one person he had curtain rods in the bag, but
> told another that his lunch was in the bag.
>

Whom exactly did Oswald tell that it was his lunch in the bag. Did we
catch you making up crap again?

> Perhaps a very long kielbasa sausage? It could be eaten, and yet also
> be sturdy enough to hold up curtains.
>

You know how those Texas boys are about their 3-foot long sandwiches.
The make everything bigger in Texas.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

When did he say that?

ITTC had the wrong position for Z313 in its first airing. I and a number
of others contacted the DC with that and other errors in the program, such
as the dating of the SS photos. The subsequent viewings showed the
'corrected' position.

But wouldn't acknowledging that his thinking had changed invalidate the GK
test?

[Anthony Marsh]

That GK test was a hoax anyway.

[John Reagor King]

In article <1592579e-d77c-4b76...@googlegroups.com>,

ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And yet do you not cling to the silly idea that the fatal headshot at Z313
> that fragmented

Why is that idea "silly," exactly? It is not at all uncommon for
bullets to fragment when striking hard bone.

> and the 'magic bullet' that went through two people and
> supposedly ended up in nearly-pristine condition both came from the same ammo
> and the same gun?

That bullet did not strike bone that was as hard as the bone of the skull.
The first thing it struck, very much unlike the head shot, was the
President's back and it passed all the way through him without striking
any bone very directly, only barely nicking one of his vertebrae, then
exited the front of his throat. This would quite obviously slow the
bullet down, so that when it went into Connally's back it was not
traveling as fast as it would have been had Connally's back been the first
thing it struck. Now, inside his torso, of course it struck one of his
ribs, but firstly that is not as hard a type of bone as the bones of the
cranium, and as already stated, the bullet had already been slowed down by
passage through another person first. The bullet was also quite obviously
tumbling when it exited JFK's throat, because the entry in Connally's back
was elongated, not circular. So it did not necessarily strike the rib
nose first, which also would make a difference. It then exited his chest
and smashed through his wrist, but obviously it would have been slowed
down even further by the passage through Connally's torso, and after that
was barely traveling fast enough to embed itself a little way into his
thigh, and it did not damage the femur, so obviously this bullet was not
traveling very fast at all by this point.

And you are yet another of these people articulating the myth that the
bullet was nearly pristine. It was not. The base of the bullet
especially was severely flattened, and this is obvious from photographs in
which the view is directly toward the base of the bullet. This is further
evidence that the bullet was tumbling and did not strike either Connaly's
rib or the bones of his wrist nose first.

There isn't anything at all "magic" about this bullet. Its trajectory,
its tumbling, and its reduction in velocity are all perfectly plausible to
explain its lack of fragmentation.

The head shot is an entirely different matter. There it did not pass
through any object, hard or soft, before striking the skull, one of the
hardest bones in the body, and thus its velocity was not reduced by
passing through anything else first. It also almost certainly struck the
skull nose first, as the lack of it passing through anything prior to that
would have almost certainly resulted in a lack of any significant tumbling
or yawing. It is perfectly plausible that that bullet would fragment and
the other one wouldn't.

> Ironically, the ITTC tests may have demonstrated that the bullets LHO was
> supposed to have used were probably not used in the fatal headshot because
> none of the test bullets fragmented.

OIC, so because only one study failed to produce a fragmented bullet, that
makes it very unlikely that the head shot to JFK fragmented? Is this what
the majority of studies on 6.5 fmj bullets show? I rather doubt it. I'm
looking up references now on the Internet, and though this isn't an actual
"study," per se, I'm already finding a private gun enthusiast who said he
shot a beaver in the head, that there was no exiting, and that the bullet
had fragmented to particles no larger than grains of sand.

[John Reagor King]

In article <eb162e17-24f3-4d43...@googlegroups.com>,

fatol...@gmail.com wrote:

> The only person I can name with certainty is William Greer. He fired at least
> 1 shot, and a study of the Zapruder and Nix films will reveal this fact. The
> Zapruder film has been altered to hide Greer's shot, but not perfectly. At
> frame 304, which is about when he fired, if you zoom in over Kellerman's head
> and adjust the contrast and brightness, you can see where the gun was painted
> out. This video of mine shows that:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19rTsYSLIxY&feature=plcp . In frame 318, you
> can see the blurred arm up in the same position, but you can see on the Nix
> film that his arm actually wasn't up at this point.

This myth was conclusively debunked ages ago, and it is amazing that
anyone is still repeating it today. That isn't Greer's arm, nor is it a
gun. It is the reflection of sunlight on top of Kellerman's head. This
is obvious when watching a good-quality version of the film, such as on
the MPI dvd, which is also on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVafiaW4AdY

> My theory is that the
> editor wanted to leave a clue for posterity that would expose his own fake.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KgwpOKRTdg&feature=plcp . The next surest
> shot came from the overpass. That's where Curry immediately told his men to
> look. That's where motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis thought the shots came from.

You're leaving out that more than 90% of all witnesses who thought any
shot came from the Triple Underpass thought ALL of the shots came from
there, and from no other direction. That doesn't support multiple
shooters very well, does it?

> And that's where you can see a cloud of smoke drifting from in the Weigman
> film.

You mean steam from the pipes near the bridge. The "smoke" myth was
also conclusively debunked decades ago.

> When Hargis got there, although he did not say so, there was a man who
> looks like a Dallas PD detective with what looks like a gun butt propped up
> beside him. I think he fired the shot that hit JFK at Zapruder frame 322.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34VtueTh36k&feature=plcp Beyond that, I think
> there were probably 2 shooters from behind, maybe even Oswald! And there
> could have been 1 on the knoll, too.

Strange then that less than 10% of the witnesses thought shots came from
multiple directions.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

You can't quote GM saying Jackie wouldn't have been blown away by a shot
from the GK?

Why do you say that the entire GK test was a hoax?

Agreed that it did not prove what they claim it did -- that the GK was not
a viable position for Z313.

[Research]

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:


>> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,

Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why did
he tell the WC it waas a pipe. AND Why wasn't he in the Bell film in the
position where he claimed he was? Why can't we find him in any film. Just
cause he was in Dealey doesn't mean he was telling the truth when he
claimed he saw a man on the sixthfloor?

>>
>>
>>
>> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?

Is a pipe the same as a rifle?

>> > spent shells at the very location he saw the shooter,

Other than the window, where did he see the shooter.Not Oswald. Cause
Enius could not identify Oswald as the man he saw. He only testified he
saw a bald spot on the man's head. But he somehow couldn't see his face?

>>
>> Two? CE399 is one. What other bullet was recovered?
>>
> The fragmented bullet found in the limo by the SS that evening.

Couldn't that have been the bullet that struck the windshields chrome?

>> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any
>> > physical evidence there was such a shooter.

No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after. In the
opposite direction of the dep. I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear
shooter. So don't go off, jest yet. There was rear shooter. At least one.
But more likely he had others to help. Notice that there are two windows
on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe the head shot came from there?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/13/2012 4:22 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <1592579e-d77c-4b76...@googlegroups.com>,
> ss679x <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And yet do you not cling to the silly idea that the fatal headshot at Z313
>> that fragmented
>
> Why is that idea "silly," exactly? It is not at all uncommon for
> bullets to fragment when striking hard bone.
>
>> and the 'magic bullet' that went through two people and
>> supposedly ended up in nearly-pristine condition both came from the same ammo
>> and the same gun?
>
> That bullet did not strike bone that was as hard as the bone of the skull.

Oh, you mean like the radius, the thickest bone in the human body.
I suggest that you look at the photos of bullets that Dr. Alfred Olivier
shot into cadaver wrists and then claim they came out pristine.

Mr. SPECTER. And was a series of tests performed under your supervision
on the portions of human cadavers simulated to the wound inflicted on
the wrist of Governor Connally?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you familiar with the nature of the wound on
Governor Connally's wrist prior to performing those tests?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, 1 was.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the source of your information on those wounds?
Dr. OLIVIER. I had read the surgeon's report, also talked with Dr.
Gregory, the surgeon who had done the surgery, and had looked at the X-rays.
Mr. SPECTER Had you had an opportunity to discuss the wounds with
Dr. Gregory and view the X-rays taken at Parkland Hospital, here in the
Commission headquarters?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. On April 21, 1964?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you an X-ray marked as Commission Exhibit
854, and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. This is a comminuted fracture of the distal end of the
radius of a human arm.
Mr. SPECTER. And in what manner was that wound caused?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was caused by a bullet from the Commission Exhibit
139. This was again the 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher- Carcano Western
ammunition lot 6,000.
Mr. SPECTER. Fired at what distance?
Dr. OLIVIER. Fired at a distance of 70 yards.
Mr. SPECTER. And was there anything protecting the wrist at the
time of impact?
Dr. OLIVIER. Not protection but there was again clothing, this time
suit material or suit lining, at least suit material and shirt. I am not
sure about the lining. I can tell you. I have it right here. Suit
material, suit lining material, and shirt material.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked as Commission
Exhibit 855 and ask you what that represents?
Dr. OLIVIER. This is a photograph taken from the X-ray, Commission
Exhibit 854.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe for the record the details of the
injuries shown on 854 and 855, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. This is a comminuted fracture of the distal end of the
radius. It was struck directly by the bullet. It passed through, not
directly through but through at an oblique angle so that it entered more
proximal on the dorsal side of the wrist and distal on the volar aspect.
Mr. SPECTER. How does the entry and exit compare with the wound on
Governor Connally which you observed on the X- rays?
Dr. OLIVIER. In this particular instance to the best of my memory
from looking at the X-rays, it is very close. It is about one of the
best ones that we obtained.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there any definable difference at all?
Dr. OLIVIER. I couldn't determine any.
Mr. SPECTER. It is close, you say?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. If I had both X-rays in front of me if there was
a difference I could determine it, but from memory I would say it was
for all purposes identical.
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a bullet in a case marked Commission
Exhibit 856 and ask if you have ever seen that before?

81

Page 82

Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. This is the bullet that caused the damage shown
in Commission Exhibits Nos. 854 and 855.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you describe that bullet for the record, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. The nose of the bullet is quite flattened from
striking the radius.
Mr. SPECTER. How does it compare, for example, with Commission
Exhibit 399?
Dr. OLIVIER. It is not like it at all. I mean, Commission Exhibit
399 is not flattened on the end. This one is very severely flattened on
the end.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the velocity of the missile at the time it
struck the wrist depicted in 854 and 855?
Dr. OLIVIER. The average striking velocity was 1,858 feet per second.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have the precise striking velocity of that one?
Dr. OLIVIER. No; I don't. We could not put velocity screen in front
of the individual shots because it would have interfered with the
gunner's view. So we took five shots and got an average striking velocity.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say five shots with an average striking
velocity, those were at the delineated distance without striking
anything on those particular shots?
Dr. OLIVIER. Right, and after establishing that velocity, then we
went on to shoot the various arms.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the exit velocity?
Dr. OLIVIER. On this particular one?
Mr. SPECTER. If you have it?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes. Well, I don't know if I have that or not. We
didn't get them in all because some of these things deflect. No, I have
no exit velocity on this particular one.
Mr. SPECTER. What exit velocity did you get on the average?
Dr. OLIVIER. Average exit velocity was 1,776 feet per second. This
was for an average of seven. We did 10. We obtained velocity on seven.
Mr. SPECTER. Would the average reduction be approximately the same,
in your professional opinion, as to the bullet exiting from the wrist
depicted in 854 and 855?
Dr. OLIVIER. Somewhat. Let me give you the extremes of our
velocities. The highest one was 1,866 and the lowest was 1,664, so there
was a 202-feet-per-second difference in the thing. Some of the cases
bone was missed, in other cases glancing blows. But I would say it is a
close approximation to what the exit velocity was on that particular one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what would the close approximation be, the average?
Dr. OLIVIER. The average.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you compare the damage, which was done to
Governor Connally's wrist, as contrasted with the damage to the wrist
depicted in 854 and 855?
Dr. OLIVIER. The damage in the wrist that you see in the X-ray on
854 and 855, the damage is greater than was done to the Governor's
wrist. There is more severe comminution here.
Mr. SPECTER. How much more severe is the comminution?
Dr. OLIVIER. Considerably more. If I remember correctly in the
X-rays of the Governor's wrist, I think there were only two or three
fragments, if that many. Here we have many, many small fragments.
Mr. SPECTER. In your opinion, based on the tests which you have
performed, was the damage inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist caused
by a pristine bullet, a bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
6.5 missile which did not hit anything before it struck the Governor's
wrist?
Dr. OLIVIER. I don't believe so. I don't believe his wrist was
struck by a pristine bullet.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the reason for your conclusion on that?
Dr. OLIVIER. In this case I go by the size of the entrance wound
and exit wound on the Governor's wrist. The entrance wound was on the
dorsal surface, it was described by the surgeon as being much larger
than the exit wound. He said he almost overlooked that on the volar
aspect of the wrist.
In every instance we had a larger exit wound than an entrance wound
firing

82

Page 83

with a pristine bullet apparently at the same angle at which it entered
and exited the Governor's wrist.
Also, and I don't believe they were mixed up on which was entrance
and exit. For one thing the clothing, you know, the surgeon found pieces
of clothing and the other thing the human anatomy is such that I don't
believe it would enter through the volar aspect and out the top.
So I am pretty sure that the Governor's wrist was not hit by a
pristine or a stable bullet.
Mr. SPECTER. What is there, in and of the nature of the smaller
wound of exit and larger wound of entrance in the Governor's wrist as
contrasted with a smaller wound of entrance and larger wound of exit in
854 and 855, which leads you to conclude that the Governor's wrist was
not struck by a pristine bullet?
Dr. OLIVIER. Do you want to repeat that question again?
Mr. SPECTER. What is there about the wound of entry or exit which
led you to think that the Governor's wrist wasn't struck by a pristine
bullet?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, he would have had a larger exit wound than
entrance wound, which he did not.
Mr. SPECTER. And if the velocity of the missile is decreased, how
does that effect the nature of the wounds of entry and exit?
Dr. OLIVIER. If the velocity is decreased, if the bullet is still
stable, he still should have a larger exit wound than an entrance.
Now, on the other hand, to get a larger entrance wound and a
smaller exit wound, this indicates the bullet probably hit with very
much of a yaw. I mean, as this hole appeared in the velocity screen the
bullet either tumbling or striking sideways, this would have made a
larger entrance wound, lose considerable of its velocity in fracturing
the bone, and coming out at a very low velocity, made a smaller hole.
Mr SPECTER. So the crucial factor would be the analysis that the
bullet was characterized with yaw at the time it struck?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Causing a larger wound of entry and a smaller wound of
exit?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now is there anything in the----
Dr. OLIVIER. Also at a reduced velocity because if it struck at
considerable yaw at a high velocity as it could do if it hit something
and deflected, it would have, it could make a larger wound of exit but
it would have been even a more severe wound than we had here. It would
have been very severe, could even amputate the wrist hitting at high
velocity sideways. We have to say this bullet was characterized by an
extreme amount of yaw and reduced velocity. How much reduced, I don't
know, but considerably reduced.
Mr. SPECTER. Does the greater damage, inflicted on the wrist in 854
and 855 than that which was inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist, have
any value as indicating whether Governor Connally's wrist was struck by
a pristine bullet?
Dr. OLIVIER. No; because holding the velocity the same or similar
the damage would be greater with a tumbling bullet than a pristine.
I think it reflects both instability and reduced velocity. You have
to show the two. I mean, the size of the entrance and exit are very
important. This shows that the thing was used when it struck. The fact
that there was no more damage than was done by a tumbling bullet
indicates the bullet at a reduced velocity. You have to put these two
things together.
Mr. SPECTER. Had Governor Connally's wrist been struck with a
pristine bullet without yaw, would more damage have been inflicted----
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Than was inflicted on the Governor's wrist?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. So then the lesser damage on the Governor's wrist in
and of itself indicates in your opinion----
Dr. OLIVIER. That it wasn't struck by a pristine bullet; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any other conclusions which flow from the
experiments which you conducted on the wrist?
Dr. OLIVIER. We concluded that it wasn't struck by a pristine
bullet. Also drew the conclusion that it was struck by an unstable
bullet, a bullet at a much

83

Page 84

reduced velocity. The question that it brings up in. my mind is if the
same bullet that struck the wrist had passed through the Governor's
chest, if the bullet that struck the Governor's chest had not hit
anything else would it have been reduced low enough to do this, and I
wonder, based on our work--it brings to mind the possibility the same
bullet that struck the President striking the Governor would account for
this more readily. I don't know, I don't think you can ever say this,
but it is a very good possibility, I think more possible, more probable
than not.
The CHAIRMAN. What is more probable than not, Doctor?
Dr. OLIVIER. In my mind at least, and I don't know the angles at
which the things went or anything, it seems to me more probable that the
bullet that hit the Governor's chest had already been slowed down
somewhat, in order to lose enough velocity to strike his wrist and do no
more damage than it did. I don't know how you would ever determine it
exactly. I think the best approach is to find out the angles of flight,
whether it is possible. But I have a feeling that it might have been.
The CHAIRMAN. It might have been?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The one that went through his chest went through his
hand also.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; and also through the President.
The CHAIRMAN. The first shot?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, I don't know whether the first or second. The
first one could have missed. It could have been the second that hit both.
The CHAIRMAN. The one that went through his back and came out his
trachea?
Dr. OLIVIER. It could have hit the Governor in the chest and went
through because it had so little velocity after coming out of the wrist
that it barely penetrated the thigh.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask one more question? Would you think that the
same bullet could have done all three of those things?
Dr. OLIVIER. That same bullet was capable.
The CHAIRMAN. Gone through the President's back as it did, gone
through Governor Connally's chest as it did, and then through his hand
as it did?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was certainly capable of doing all that.
The CHAIRMAN. It was capable?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The one shot?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Olivier, based on the descriptions of the wound
on the Governor's back, what in your opinion was the characteristic of
the bullet at the time it struck the Governor's back with respect to the
course of its flight?
Dr. OLIVIER. Let's say from the size of the wound as described by
the surgeon, it could have been tipped somewhat when it struck because
that is a fairly large wound. Another thing that could have done it is
the angle at which it hit. On the goat some of the wounds were larger
than others. On the goat material some of the wounds were larger than
others because of the angle at which it hit this material. The same
thing could happen on the Governor's back.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was that wound described with respect to its size?
Dr. OLIVIER. The Governor's wound?
Mr. SPECTER. On the Governor's back?
Dr. OLIVIER. About 3 centimeters at its largest dimension.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you have any view as to which factor was
more probable, as to whether it was a tangential strike on the
Governor's back, or whether there was yaw in the bullet at the time it
struck the Governor's back?
Dr. OLIVIER. I couldn't as far as being tangential. I couldn't
answer that, not knowing the position of the Governor. But it could have
been caused by a bullet yawing. I mean it would have made a larger
wound, as that was.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there any other cause which could account for that
type of a large wound on the Governor's back other than with the bullet
yawing?
Dr. OLIVIER. With this particular bullet those would be the two
probable causes of this wound of this size.

84

Page 85

Mr. SPECTER. And those two probable causes are what?
Dr. OLIVIER. One, the bullet hitting not perpendicular to the
surface of the Governor, in other words, hitting tangential at a slight
angle on his back so that it came in cutting the skin. Another, the
bullet hitting that wasn't perpendicular to the surface as it hit. The
bullet did go along, the surgeon described the path as tangential but he
is speaking of along the rib. It isn't clear it was, as it struck,
whether it was a tangential shot or actually perpendicular to the
Governor's back.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to add one additional factor which Dr. Shaw
testified to during the course of the proceeding after he measured the
angle of decline through the Governor; and Dr. Shaw testified that there
was a 25� to 27� angle of declination measuring from front to back on
the Governor, taking into account the position of the wound on the
Governor's back and the position of the wound on the Governor's chest
below the right nipple.
Now with that factor, added to those which you already know, would
that enable you to form a conclusion as to whether the nature of the
wound on the Governor's back was caused by yaw of the bullet or by a
tangential strike?
Dr. OLIVIER. I don't think I would want to say. If I could have
seen the Governor's wound, this would have been a help.
Mr. SPECTER. Would the damage done to the Governor's wrist indicate
that a bullet which was fired approximately 160 to 250 feet away with
the muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, would it
indicate that the bullet was slowed up only by the passage through the
Governor's body, in the way which you know, or would it indicate that
there was some other factor which slowed up the bullet in addition?
Dr. OLIVIER. It would indicate there was some other factor that had
slowed up the bullet in addition.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Dr. OLIVIER. The amount of damage alone; striking that end it would
have caused more severe comminution as we found. You know--if it hadn't
been slowed up in some other fashion. At that range it still had a
striking velocity of 1,858 or in the vicinity of 1,800 feet per second,
which is capable of doing more damage than was done to the Governor's wrist.
Mr. SPECTER. Had the same bullet which passed through the
President, in the way heretofore described for the record, then struck
the Governor as well, what effect would there have been in reducing its
velocity as a result of that course?
Dr. OLIVIER. You say the bullet first struck the President. In
coming out of the President's body it would have had a tendency to be
slightly unstable. In striking the Governor it would have lost more
velocity in his chest than if it had been a pristine bullet striking the
Governor's chest, so it would have exited from the Governor's chest I
would say at a considerably reduced velocity, probably with a good
amount of yaw or tumbling, and this would account for the type of wound
that the Governor did have in his wrist.
Mr. SPECTER. The approximate reduction in velocity on passage
through the goat was what, Doctor?
Dr. OLIVIER. The average velocity loss in the seven cases we did
was 82 feet per second.
Mr. SPECTER. If the bullet had passed through the President prior
to the time it passed through the Governor, would you expect a larger
loss than 82 feet per second resulting from the passage through the body
of the Governor?
Dr. OLIVIER. I am not sure if I heard you correctly. This is if it
hit the Governor without hitting the President or hitting the President
first?
Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase it for you, Dr. Olivier.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; please.
Mr. SPECTER. You testified that the bullet lost 82 feet per second
when it passed through the goat.
Dr. OLIVIER Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now what would your expectations be as to the
reduction in velocity on a bullet which passed through the Governor,
assuming that it struck nothing first?
Dr. OLIVIER. It would be greater; the distance through the
Governor's chest would have been greater.

85

Page 86

Mr. SPECTER. Would that be an appreciable or approximately the same?
Dr. OLIVIER. Can I bring in any other figures? Dr. Dziemian has
computed approximately what he thought it would have lost.
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, of course, if you have any other figure which
would be helpful.
Dr. DZIEMIAN. I believe you misunderstood Mr. Specter. I think you
gave the figure for the loss of velocity through the Governor's wrist
instead of through his chest.
Dr. OLIVIER. I am sorry. We were on the wrist; okay.
Mr. SPECTER. Let me start again then. In an effort to draw some
conclusion about the reduction in velocity through the Governor's chest,
I am now going back and asking you what was the reduction in velocity of
the bullet which passed through the goat?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did misunderstand you. I am sorry. The loss in
velocity passing through the goat was 265 feet per second.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would that be the approximate loss in velocity of
a pristine bullet passing through the Governor?
Dr. OLIVIER. The loss would be somewhat greater.
Mr. SPECTER. How much greater in your opinion?
Dr. OLIVIER. Do you have that figure, Dr. Dziemian?
Dr. DZIEMIAN. I would say a pristine bullet of the Governor was
about half again thicker. It would be about half again as great
velocity, somewhere around 400.
Mr. SPECTER. Had the bullet passed through only the Governor,
losing velocity of 400 feet per second, would you have expected that the
damage inflicted on the Governor's wrist would have been about the same
as that inflicted on Governor Connally or greater?
Dr. OLIVIER. My feeling is it would have been greater.
Mr. SPECTER Had the bullet passed through the President and then
struck Governor Connally, would it have lost velocity of 400 feet per
second in passing through Governor Connally or more?
Dr. OLIVIER. It would have lost more.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the reason for that?
Dr. OLIVIER. The bullet after passing through, say a dense medium,
then through air and then through another dense medium tends to be more
unstable, based on our past work. It appears to be that it would have
tumbled more readily and lost energy more rapidly. How much velocity it
would have lost, I couldn't say, but it would have lost more.
Mr. SPECTER. Are there any indications from the internal wounds on
Governor Connally as to whether or not the bullet which entered his body
was an unstable bullet?
Dr. OLIVIER. The only thing that might give you an indication would
be the skin wound of entrance, the type of rib fracture and all that I
think could be accounted for by either type, because in our experiment
we simulated, although not to as great a degree, the damage wasn't as
severe, but I think it would be hard to say that.
One thing comes to my mind right now that might indicate it. There
was a greater flattening of the bullet in our experiments than there was
going through the Governor, which might indicate that it struck the rib
which did the flattening at a lower velocity. This is only a thought.
Mr. SPECTER. It struck the rib of the Governor?
Dr. OLIVIER. It struck the rib of the Governor at a lower velocity
because that bullet was less flattened than the bullet through the goat
material.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the nature of the wound inflicted on the
Governor's wrist, and on the tests which you have conducted then, do you
have an opinion as to which is more probable on whether the bullet
passed through only the Governor's chest before striking his wrist, or
passed through the President first and then the Governor's chest before
striking the Governor's wrist?
Dr. OLIVIER Will you say that again to make sure I have it?
Mr. SPECTER. [To the reporter.] Could you repeat that question, please?
(The question was read by the reporter.)
Dr. OLIVIER. You couldn't say exactly at all. My feeling is that it
would be

86

Page 87

more probable that it passed through the President first. At least I
think it is important to establish line of flight to try to determine it.
Mr. SPECTER. Aside from the lines of flight, based on the factors
which were known to you from the medical point of view and from the
tests which you conducted, what would be the reason for the feeling
which you just expressed?
Dr. OLIVIER. Because I believe you would need that, I mean to
account for the damage to the wrist, I don't think you would have gotten
a low enough velocity upon reaching the wrist unless you had gone
through the President's body first.
Mr. SPECTER. The President's body as well as the Governor's body?
Dr. OLIVIER. As well as the Governor's.
Mr. SPECTER. Does the nature of the wound which was inflicted on
Governor Connally's thigh shed any light on this subject?
Dr. OLIVIER. This, to my mind, at least, merely indicates the
bullet at this time was about spent. In talking with doctor, I believe
it was Gregory, I don't think he did the operation on the thigh but at
least he saw the wound, and he said it was about the size of an eraser
on a lead pencil. This could be accounted for--and there was also this
small fragment of bullet in this thigh wound--this, to me, indicates
that this was a spent bullet that had gone through the wrist as the
Governor was sitting there, went through the wrist into his thigh, just
partly imbedded and then fell out and I believe this was the bullet that
was found on the stretcher.

> The first thing it struck, very much unlike the head shot, was the
> President's back and it passed all the way through him without striking
> any bone very directly, only barely nicking one of his vertebrae, then
> exited the front of his throat. This would quite obviously slow the
> bullet down, so that when it went into Connally's back it was not
> traveling as fast as it would have been had Connally's back been the first

Silly statement intended to deceive. Even without hitting the President
and going through his body first a bullet would be going slower by
traveling that extra 2 feet to Connally. But the Army tests showed that
going through JFK's neck would have slowed the bullet down by only 129
fps, so you are making a big deal out of a little difference.
That same loss of velocity could be accounted for by the shot being a
fouling shot.

> thing it struck. Now, inside his torso, of course it struck one of his
> ribs, but firstly that is not as hard a type of bone as the bones of the
> cranium, and as already stated, the bullet had already been slowed down by
> passage through another person first. The bullet was also quite obviously
> tumbling when it exited JFK's throat, because the entry in Connally's back
> was elongated, not circular. So it did not necessarily strike the rib

False logic. An elongated wound does not prove tumbling. Stop spreading
disinformation.

> nose first, which also would make a difference. It then exited his chest
> and smashed through his wrist, but obviously it would have been slowed
> down even further by the passage through Connally's torso, and after that
> was barely traveling fast enough to embed itself a little way into his
> thigh, and it did not damage the femur, so obviously this bullet was not
> traveling very fast at all by this point.
>
> And you are yet another of these people articulating the myth that the
> bullet was nearly pristine. It was not. The base of the bullet
> especially was severely flattened, and this is obvious from photographs in
> which the view is directly toward the base of the bullet. This is further
> evidence that the bullet was tumbling and did not strike either Connaly's
> rib or the bones of his wrist nose first.
>

Maybe you've never seen the very first photograph taken of the bullet
even before it became CE399. It was known as Q1.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

> There isn't anything at all "magic" about this bullet. Its trajectory,
> its tumbling, and its reduction in velocity are all perfectly plausible to
> explain its lack of fragmentation.
>
> The head shot is an entirely different matter. There it did not pass
> through any object, hard or soft, before striking the skull, one of the
> hardest bones in the body, and thus its velocity was not reduced by
> passing through anything else first. It also almost certainly struck the
> skull nose first, as the lack of it passing through anything prior to that
> would have almost certainly resulted in a lack of any significant tumbling
> or yawing. It is perfectly plausible that that bullet would fragment and
> the other one wouldn't.
>
>> Ironically, the ITTC tests may have demonstrated that the bullets LHO was
>> supposed to have used were probably not used in the fatal headshot because
>> none of the test bullets fragmented.
>
> OIC, so because only one study failed to produce a fragmented bullet, that
> makes it very unlikely that the head shot to JFK fragmented? Is this what
> the majority of studies on 6.5 fmj bullets show? I rather doubt it. I'm
> looking up references now on the Internet, and though this isn't an actual
> "study," per se, I'm already finding a private gun enthusiast who said he
> shot a beaver in the head, that there was no exiting, and that the bullet
> had fragmented to particles no larger than grains of sand.
>

With a hunting round?
Apples and oranges.
Your typical illogic.

[Anthony Marsh]

I said nothing like that. You can't quote Neil Armstrong denying that he
saw aliens when he went to the moon. Silly.

> Why do you say that the entire GK test was a hoax?
>

It was a straw man argument. They chose the wrong angle and used the
wrong rifle and wrong ammunition. It was a magic trick, just for show.

> Agreed that it did not prove what they claim it did -- that the GK was not
> a viable position for Z313.
>

Which position? Gary Mack was pushing the Badge Man position not the
HSCA position.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

They didn't say that because the questions were not phrased that way.

>> And that's where you can see a cloud of smoke drifting from in the Weigman
>> film.
>
> You mean steam from the pipes near the bridge. The "smoke" myth was
> also conclusively debunked decades ago.
>

The steam pipes myth was conclusively debunkced several decades ago.
The steam line was much too far away.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

yada yada...we know...that's what the wcr wants us to believe...

>
>
>
> And you are yet another of these people articulating the myth that the
>
> bullet was nearly pristine. It was not. The base of the bullet
>
> especially was severely flattened, and this is obvious from photographs in
>
> which the view is directly toward the base of the bullet. This is further
>
> evidence that the bullet was tumbling and did not strike either Connaly's
>
> rib or the bones of his wrist nose first.
>

oh, excuse me. ce399 still looked very much like a bullet by the time it emerged from its world tour. why didn't it fragment, if it was the same ammo as that of the head shot?

>
>
> There isn't anything at all "magic" about this bullet. Its trajectory,
>
> its tumbling, and its reduction in velocity are all perfectly plausible to
>
> explain its lack of fragmentation.

what isn't 'magic' is that there are various scenarios of what happened and none of them are persuasive.

>
>
>
> The head shot is an entirely different matter. There it did not pass
>
> through any object, hard or soft, before striking the skull, one of the
>
> hardest bones in the body, and thus its velocity was not reduced by
>
> passing through anything else first. It also almost certainly struck the
>
> skull nose first, as the lack of it passing through anything prior to that
>
> would have almost certainly resulted in a lack of any significant tumbling
>
> or yawing. It is perfectly plausible that that bullet would fragment and
>
> the other one wouldn't.
>

no it isn't.

>
>
> > Ironically, the ITTC tests may have demonstrated that the bullets LHO was
>
> > supposed to have used were probably not used in the fatal headshot because
>
> > none of the test bullets fragmented.
>
>
>
> OIC, so because only one study failed to produce a fragmented bullet, that
>
> makes it very unlikely that the head shot to JFK fragmented?

really? are you going to just blithely dismiss the ITTC tests? they cost
about $100K and were something the WC should have done but didn't. We
don't have much of a basis of comparison because nobody else has done this
kind of study. certainly we have something to learn from them?

Is this what
>
> the majority of studies on 6.5 fmj bullets show? I rather doubt it. I'm
>
> looking up references now on the Internet, and though this isn't an actual
>
> "study," per se, I'm already finding a private gun enthusiast who said he
>
> shot a beaver in the head, that there was no exiting, and that the bullet
>
> had fragmented to particles no larger than grains of sand.

you protest just a bit too much. at least you are thinking about this...

[Research]

"slats" <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9Qu3s.662235$Xo4.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...

> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3eb29ed9-fe53-432e...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> They claimed they came from the direction of the knoll. And they were
>> wrong. Others said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. They
>> were right. We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a
>> gunman on the sixth floor of the TSBD, spent shells at the very
>> location he saw the shooter, and a rifle found on that floor that
>> matched not only the shells but the two recovered bullets. There are
>> no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any physical
>> evidence there was such a shooter.

Yes there was evidence of a shooter. The President was shot in the back. I
could be wrong, but I do think there was a back shooter.

>
>
> I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
> (let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
> help) but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
> know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.

I'm not saying Oswald wasn't involved. The probablity that he was alone,
is observed by the nutters as the only possibility. Ignoring witness
testimony that shots did come from the knoll. Many many many witnesses ran
up the knoll. Why would they do that? It is in the opposite direction from
the dep? Just how can all these eyewitnesses be so wrong? Before the crowd
rushed the knoll, one police officer suddenly jumped off his motorcycle
and ran up the knoll. Who was he chasing? Chasing a phantom? Did he think
Oswald magically appeared behind the knoll?

[Research]

"ss679x" <ss6...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f1aa4fa-e862-4c20...@googlegroups.com...

This is the silliest argument of the assassination.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:02:01 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>
> >> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>
> >> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>
>
>
> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why did
>
> he tell the WC it waas a pipe. AND Why wasn't he in the Bell film in the
>
> position where he claimed he was? Why can't we find him in any film. Just
>
> cause he was in Dealey doesn't mean he was telling the truth when he
>
> claimed he saw a man on the sixthfloor?
>

Amos Euins was just one of several witnesses who saw a gunman in the 6th
floor window. I was referring to Howard Brennan who actually located
Oswald in time to see him fire the last shot. Brennan obviously saw the
gunman. How else would he have been able to point to the very window where
they would later find three spent shells. Just a lucky guess?

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?
>
>
>
> Is a pipe the same as a rifle?
>

If you think Oswald was holding a pipe, the next question would be what
kind of pipe are you smoking.

>
>
> >> > spent shells at the very location he saw the shooter,
>
>
>
> Other than the window, where did he see the shooter.Not Oswald. Cause
>
> Enius could not identify Oswald as the man he saw. He only testified he
>
> saw a bald spot on the man's head. But he somehow couldn't see his face?
>

Brennan did ID Oswald, but that is not the most compelling identification.
That came in the form of the physical evidence. Oswald's fingerprints in
the sniper's nest. Oswald's ownership of the rifle found on the sixth
floor that was positively matched to both the shells found at the window
and the recovered bullets. And the clincher, the shirt fibers on the butt
plate of the rifle which matched the shirt Oswald was wearing. I'd like to
see you come up with a plausible explaination that includes all these
facts that does not have Oswald firing his rifle at JFK from the sixth
floor window.

>
>
> >>
>
> >> Two? CE399 is one. What other bullet was recovered?
>
> >>
>
> > The fragmented bullet found in the limo by the SS that evening.
>
>
>
> Couldn't that have been the bullet that struck the windshields chrome?
>

It doesn't matter. It was found in the limo and it was fired by the rifle
found on the 6th floor. I believe it was the bullet that struck the
windshield but only after it had blown JFK's brains out. So as I state
previously we have two bullets recovered from Oswald's rifle. CE399 and
the fragmented bullet.

>
>
> >> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any
>
> >> > physical evidence there was such a shooter.
>
>
>
> No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after.

That's not physical evidence.

> In the
>
> opposite direction of the dep. I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear
>
> shooter. So don't go off, jest yet. There was rear shooter. At least one.
>
> But more likely he had others to help. Notice that there are two windows
>
> on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe the head shot came from there?

You can postulate shots from just about any place in DP that you want. The
challenge is to find physical evidence to support other shooters. So far
you have failed to present any. No one doubts that some people thought
they heard shots from the direction of the GK. But others thought they
heard shots from the direction of the TSBD and those people are supported
by hard physical evidence. It is quite easy to figure out which group wass
right and which group was wrong.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>
>
> >> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
> >> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>
> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why did
> he tell the WC it waas a pipe.

He didn't tell the WC it was a pipe. He told the WC that when he first
saw it it looked like a pipe. He looked away, then he heard the first
shot, looked back up at the window, and saw the "pipe" fire a second
shot.

> AND Why wasn't he in the Bell film in the
> position where he claimed he was? Why can't we find him in any film. Just
> cause he was in Dealey doesn't mean he was telling the truth when he
> claimed he saw a man on the sixthfloor?

He had corroboration from other witnesses that there was a man on the
sixth floor with a long, narrow object which most of them did not
describe as a "pipe."

> >> Is a "gunman" the same as a "person holding a gun"?
>
> Is a pipe the same as a rifle?

Does the barrel of a rifle resemble a pipe, especially when seen from
more than 50 feet below?

> Other than the window, where did he see the shooter.Not Oswald. Cause
> Enius could not identify Oswald as the man he saw. He only testified he
> saw a bald spot on the man's head. But he somehow couldn't see his face?

Oh, because Euins could not make out the man's face from more than 50
feet below and through a window, that automatically means it wasn't
Oswald?

> >> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any
> >> > physical evidence there was such a shooter.
>
> No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after.

Why they ran up the knoll is partly because they saw a policeman run up
there, and of course because more than 90% of all the witnesses who
thought shots came from the knoll thought all of the shots had come from
the knoll, not some of the shots, all of them. But that's also the same
thing with the ones who thought shots came from the TSBD: almost all of
them thought all of the shots came from the TSBD. More than 90% of the
witnesses who thought shots came from the Triple Underpass thought all
of the shots had come from the Triple Underpass. In fact, no matter
what direction the witnesses named, when you look at all the witnesses
who named that direction, almost all of them said all the shots had come
from that single direction and no other.

There were also a lot of people who didn't run up the knoll.

And did it ever occur to you that at least some of the people who ran up
the knoll weren't doing so because they thought gunfire had come from
there, but instead might have thought that the person who had fired from
one of the buildings was trying to escape across the parking lot toward
the railroad tracks, all of which was behind the knoll? Maybe they
thought the police officer had given chase to a gunman that had just run
out of the back of the Depository toward the railroad tracks?

> In the
> opposite direction of the dep.

Toward the parking lot and the railroad tracks that are behind the
Depository.

> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear
> shooter. So don't go off, jest yet. There was rear shooter. At least one.
> But more likely he had others to help. Notice that there are two windows
> on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe the head shot came from there?

Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
long, narrow object say they also saw another one?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Hmmm...maybe that explains why GM had nothing to say when I explained to
him that the only thing that test accomplished was to show that that rifle
and that ammo would not have worked, not that the GK shot theory had been
debunked.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

It isn't an 'argument of the assassination'; it is an observation on JBK's
position at Z312.

[Anthony Marsh]

Brennan obviously saw someone in the sniper's nest. He could not
identify the person as Oswald. BTW, the acoustics evidence proves that 3
shots were fired from the sniper's nest.

>

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:caeruleo-23D78E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>> >> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>> >> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>>
>> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why
>> did
>> he tell the WC it waas a pipe.
>
> He didn't tell the WC it was a pipe. He told the WC that when he first
> saw it it looked like a pipe. He looked away, then he heard the first
> shot, looked back up at the window, and saw the "pipe" fire a second
> shot.

That's not what the History Matters site posted.

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass when the hopped.

>
>> In the
>> opposite direction of the dep.
>
> Toward the parking lot and the railroad tracks that are behind the
> Depository.
>
I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear shooter. So don't go off, jest yet.
There was rear shooter. At least one. But more likely he had others to help.
Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
the head shot came from there?
>
> Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
> long, narrow object say they also saw another one?

Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.
>
Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
boxes, remember. Not lean out the window

[Anthony Marsh]

You are on the tight trail, but we simply don't know how the boxes were
arranged at the time of the shots. CSI Dallas rearranged them 4 times.
If any one of those arrangements was close to how they were stacked at
the window during the shooting they block anyone from leaning out the
window. Try this at home sometime, preferably on the first floor, not
the sixth.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "slats" <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9Qu3s.662235$Xo4.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
>

> > I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
> > (let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
> > help) but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
> > know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.
>
> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't involved. The probablity that he was alone,
> is observed by the nutters as the only possibility. Ignoring witness
> testimony that shots did come from the knoll.

You are misrepresenting that just as so very many people have done before
you in the past 48 years since the WC volumes were first published. You
are making it out as if these witnesses said that only some of the shots
came from the knoll. The reality is that more than 90% of the witnesses
who said shots came from the knoll specifically said that they thought all
of the shots came from the knoll, or else named no other direction in
their entire statements.

> Many many many witnesses ran
> up the knoll. Why would they do that? It is in the opposite direction from
> the dep? Just how can all these eyewitnesses be so wrong?

Wrong about what, exactly? Rather obviously one of the reasons a fair
number of the ran up the knoll was because a fair number of them thought
all of the shots came from the knoll. Not some of the shots. All of the
shots. There were also a fair number of people who didn't run up the
knoll, did you miss that part? More than 90% of the witnesses who said
shots came from the TSBD said that all the shots came from the TSBD.
More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the railroad yards
behind the knoll said that all of the shots came from the railroad yards.
More than 90% of all the witnesses who said shots came from the Triple
Underpass said that all the shots came from the Triple Underpass. No
matter which direction each witness named, more than 90% of the witnesses
who named that same direction said all of the shots came from that single
direction. Not some of the shots. All of the shots.

In stark contrast, less than 10% of the witnesses individually named
multiple directions for the shots.

Additionally less than 10% of the witnesses said that any individual shot
sounded louder or closer than any of the other shots.

So tell me, how do these 200+ witnesses offer strong support for multiple
shooters, when no matter what direction each individual witness named,
nine out of ten of the other witnesses who named that same direction said
that all of the gunfire came from that single direction? And most
especially when more than 90% of them made no mention of any individual
shot coming from a different distance than the other shots?

This isn't evidence of multiple shooters in multiple locations. It is
evidence of confusion among the witnesses regarding where the single
shooter was located.

> Before the crowd
> rushed the knoll, one police officer suddenly jumped off his motorcycle
> and ran up the knoll.

Probably because he was one of the fair number of witnesses who thought
the single shooter was firing all of the shots from the knoll.

> Who was he chasing? Chasing a phantom?

Apparently so because neither he or any other witness said that they
actually saw anyone holding a gun on the knoll, until at the earliest,
more than twelve months after the assassination, and the majority of those
claims date from long after that, and even that is a very small number as
well, far less than 10%. But compare that to the people who were already
saying on the day of the assassination, long before anyone had time to
"get to them" and "tell them what to say," that they saw a man holding a
rifle on one of the upper floors of the TSBD.

> Did he think
> Oswald magically appeared behind the knoll?

Rather obviously he didn't know yet that Oswald would be accused of the
crime, so that question is meaningless.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The DC program ITTC did a test shot from the GK position and determined
> that Jackie would have been blown away along with JFK with the Z313 shot.
> They therefore seemed to think they had debunked the GK position. They
> used a Winchester rifle and the kind of ammo they thought a sniper would
> use. :-0
>
> It is documented in the Zapruder film that Jackie's head was mere inches
> from JFK's when the fatal headshot hit. It was, in fact, a miracle that
> she was not killed too. However, unlike the ITTC, the bullet of the Z313
> shot fragmented and Jackie survived.
>
> This is the silliest argument of the assassination.

What is? That the shot came from the rear and she wasn't killed? Rather
obviously she wouldn't be, as the shot would have exited forward. She was
on his left, not in front of him. Even with fragmentation of the bullet,
the vast majority of the exiting material, brain, blood, skull, and so
forth, exited forward, as is plainly obviously in the Zapruder film. It
is also plainly obvious there that the vast majority of the damage to his
head is forward of his right ear. This is entirely consistent with what
was observed at the autopsy. No significant amount of material is claimed
to have exited to the left. She at the most would have been splattered by
some of the blood, which of course she was. More blood got on her,
obviously, when she got back into her seat and had her husband's bloody
head in her lap.

[charles wallace]

On Sep 9, 8:21 pm, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
> came from the knoll. The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
> these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
> dep got into the report. But as I found out there were many others who
> were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
> Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
> from the knoll.
>
> Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
> the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators. There were FBI
> reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.

In the year 2000 a retired DPD officer (my opinion) who wished to
remain anonymous posted on alt.conspiracy.jfk that two DPD officers
did the shooting. One fired from the knoll he said and one fired from
the TSBD sixth floor SE corner window using Oswald's rifle.

Charles

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

[John Reagor King]

In article <5054...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-23D78E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
> >> >> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
> >>
> >> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why
> >> did
> >> he tell the WC it waas a pipe.
> >
> > He didn't tell the WC it was a pipe. He told the WC that when he first
> > saw it it looked like a pipe. He looked away, then he heard the first
> > shot, looked back up at the window, and saw the "pipe" fire a second
> > shot.
>
> That's not what the History Matters site posted.

Then you must not have read the entire Euins WC testimony that History
Matters posted, or else didn't take in everything you read. I will now
quote verbatim from that very same testimony just as it appears on
History Matters, Euins's testimony, p.203:

"And then I had seen a pipe, you know, up there in the window, I thought
it was a pipe, some kind of pipe."

And here is the History Matters URL for that page, proving beyond all
possible doubt that that exact text is indeed right there:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010
6a.htm

He said he *thought* it was a pipe. Rather obviously, since the barrel
of a rifle is essentially the same thing as a "pipe," someone seeing
only that much of it from far below might think that's what it was at
first. Let's see what else he said, now from p.204:

"Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was
facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing
sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then
when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was
a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at
the window, and he shot again."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010
6b.htm

There it is even more obvious: at first he thought it was a pipe. At
first. For obvious reasons. He had looked away from the "pipe" when he
heard the first shot. But then he said that he *saw* the person shoot
again.

Let's see what else he said. Here is a much more extended section, from
p.206:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Amos, would you tell us everything that you can remember about what you
saw about the gun itself?
Mr. EUINS. Well, when I first got here on the corner, the President was
coming around the bend. That is when--I was looking at the building then.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you think it was when you first saw it?
Mr. EUINS. I thought it was a piece of pipe or something sticking out
the window.
Mr. SPECTER. Did it look like it was a piece of metal to you?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; just a little round piece of pipe.
Mr. SPECTER. About an inch in diameter, would you say?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And how long was the piece of pipe that you saw?
Mr. EUINS. It was sticking out about that much.
Mr. SPECTER. About 14 or 15 inches?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. And then after I seen it sticking out, after
awhile, that is when I heard the shot, and everybody started looking
around.
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, Amos, did you see anything besides the end of
the pipe?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. For example, you didn't see anything about a stock or any
other part of the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir--not with the first shot. You see, the President was
still right along down in here somewhere on the first shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, when you saw it on the first occasion, did you think
it was a rifle then? Or did that thought enter your mind?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I wasn't thinking about it then. But when I was
looking at it, when he shot, it sounded like a high-powered rifle, after
I listened to it awhile, because I had been in the NDCC for about a year.
Mr. SPECTER. What is NDCC?
Mr. EUINS. We call it a military army for the boys, at our school.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that ROTC?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010
7b.htm

**********

Now it is even more obvious than before. He obviously meant that only
at first did he think it was a pipe. Now let's see what he said near
the bottom of the page and going on into the next page:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Now, when you looked up at the rifle later, you described seeing some of
the trigger part.
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, describe as fully as you can for us what you saw then,
Amos.
Mr. EUINS. Well, when he stuck it out, you know--after the President had

p.207

come on down the street further, you know he kind of stuck it out more,
you know.
Mr. SPECTER. How far was it sticking out of the window would you say
then, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I would say it was about something like that.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 3 feet?
Mr. EUINS. You know--the trigger housing and stock and receiver group
out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. I can't understand you, Amos.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the
trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what direction was the rifle pointing?
Mr. EUINS. Down--what did you says Elm?
Mr. SPECTER. Elm Street?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; down Elm.
Mr. SPECTER. Was it pointing in the direction of the President?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010
8a.htm

**********

Now we can plainly see that when he looked again, he saw more of the
rifle than just the barrel. So now he knew that it wasn't a pipe after
all. Finally one last bit, from p.209:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. Now, as you were watching and heard, did you have the
impression that the noise you heard was coming from that rifle?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I didn't, because I wasn't thinking of the rifle at
flint--you know, because it looked like a pipe at first.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say the second--when you heard the second shot,
when you say you were looking at the rifle, did you have the feeling
that the noise came from the rifle when you heard the second shot, when
you were looking at it?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, did you have any impression at all about where the
noise was coming from?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; not on the first shot.
Mr. SPECTER. How about the second shot?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Where did you think the noise was coming from on the second
shot?
Mr. EUINS. I seen him shoot on the second shot.
Mr. SPECTER. So you thought the noise was coming from the rifle on the
second shot?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Did you say you thought, or saw?
Mr. EUINS. I saw him shoot the second shot.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_010
9a.htm

**********

See that, Research? He said it looked like a pipe AT FIRST. He again
made it plain that he didn't know the pipe was actually a rifle, or
where the shot came from on the first shot. But with the second shot he
SAW the person fire the second shot. And I have quoted all occurrences
of Euins saying the word "pipe" in his testimony.

So indeed I was right from the beginning. And you were wrong. I have
just proven beyond all possible doubt that these texts do indeed appear
on History Matters. You said History Matters doesn't show Euins saying
what I claimed he said. I have just proven you wrong beyond all
possible doubt.

You read less than 10% of Euins's testimony on History Matters before
you posted your provably-false claim, didn't you Research? If you read
more than that, why did you make this false claim in the first place?

I first read this complete testimony from first word to last word at
least as early as 2003. How long have you been familiar with this
testimony? From what you said to me elsewhere about Connally, you
appear to be tremendously less familiar with Warren Commission testimony
in general than I am, since you didn't even know at first that I was
quoting his testimony verbatim (you asked me where I had gotten that
quote). I would suggest in the future that whenever you are replying to
me about any claim regarding any WC testimony, no matter whose it is,
that you read that person's testimony very carefully, from start to
finish, before you reply to me regarding any claim whatsoever about that
testimony.

And I'm not saying you're going to do this again, but just in case, I'll
thank you in advance not to make the silly excuse that someone told
Euins what to say, or that the testimony was later altered before it was
printed, and that that's not really what Euins said. Unless you can
prove either of those claims to be true, you have no possible way of
knowing for certain that they are true, and you need to admit that.

I find these excuses to be all too convenient. All one has to do when
confronted with a passage of WC testimony that conflicts with one's
beliefs is to claim that someone told the witness to say that, or claim
that the testimony was altered. And all too frequently I've seen people
exhibit a double standard on this. They'll quote one portion of a
person's WC testimony to support their beliefs, and act as if it was
genuinely what the person said, without coercion. But when confronted
with another portion of the same person's testimony that conflicts with
their beliefs, suddenly they'll claim that the witness was coerced or
that the testimony was altered, even though they didn't claim that
before when they themselves were quoting from the same testimony.

I posted in another thread about a famous assassination author trying to
pull this same trick on me. When I called him on it, noting the obvious
transparency of his double-standard, he abruptly fell silent.

I do not ever use such a double standard with WC testimony, ever.
Unless it can be conclusively proven that the witness was told what to
say, by naming the person who told them what to say and proving that
that person really did tell the witness what to say, or unless it can be
conclusively proven that the printed testimony is different from what
the witness really said, I simply accept it as genuine, even when it
does conflict with my beliefs.

> >> >> > There are no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the knoll or any
> >> >> > physical evidence there was such a shooter.
> >>
> >> No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after.
> >
> > Why they ran up the knoll is partly because they saw a policeman run up
> > there, and of course because more than 90% of all the witnesses who
> > thought shots came from the knoll thought all of the shots had come from
> > the knoll, not some of the shots, all of them. But that's also the same
> > thing with the ones who thought shots came from the TSBD: almost all of
> > them thought all of the shots came from the TSBD. More than 90% of the
> > witnesses who thought shots came from the Triple Underpass thought all
> > of the shots had come from the Triple Underpass. In fact, no matter
> > what direction the witnesses named, when you look at all the witnesses
> > who named that direction, almost all of them said all the shots had come
> > from that single direction and no other.
> >
> > There were also a lot of people who didn't run up the knoll.
> >
> > And did it ever occur to you that at least some of the people who ran up
> > the knoll weren't doing so because they thought gunfire had come from
> > there, but instead might have thought that the person who had fired from
> > one of the buildings was trying to escape across the parking lot toward
> > the railroad tracks, all of which was behind the knoll? Maybe they
> > thought the police officer had given chase to a gunman that had just run
> > out of the back of the Depository toward the railroad tracks?
>
> If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass when the hopped.

Huh?

> >> In the
> >> opposite direction of the dep.
> >
> > Toward the parking lot and the railroad tracks that are behind the
> > Depository.
>
> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear shooter. So don't go off, jest yet.
> There was rear shooter. At least one. But more likely he had others to help.

Why is that "more likely," exactly?

> Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
> the head shot came from there?

Please name the witnesses who said they saw two men holding a long,
narrow object. Be very careful about that; it ought to be obvious by
now that I'm fairly good about looking up the original sources, and
apparently better than you are.

Obviously.

> > Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
> > long, narrow object say they also saw another one?
>
> Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
> fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.

Just because they might be the only two witnesses to actually be looking
right at the rifle as it was firing doesn't mean one can't make a
witness case without them. Several other people said they saw a man
holding a rifle, or at least some sort of long, narrow object, in that
building at least close to the time of the shooting. Robert Jackson
said this, and don't you dare tell me this isn't on History Matters:

"Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all
around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been
looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a
window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right
on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle or what looked like a
rifle approximately half of the weapon, I guess I saw, and just as I
looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I
saw no one in the window with it."

He looked right after the last shot was fired and saw the rifle being
drawn back in the window. Naturally he didn't see the shooter because
by then the shooter was no longer close enough to the window.

Malcolm Couch, riding in the same car as Jackson, said this, also shown
on History Matters:

'And after the third shot, Bob Jackson, who was, as I recall, on my
right, yelled something like, "Look up in the window! There's the rifle!"
And I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the
time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor, and seeing about a foot
of a rifle being the barrel brought into the window.'

Then there's the testimony of the wife of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell:

**********

Mr. HUBERT. What was the first thing you noticed of an extraordinary
nature, or heard?
Mrs. CABELL. I heard the shot, and without having to turn my head, I
jerked my head up.
Mr. HUBERT. Why did you do that?
Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and
I just jerked my head up.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those
windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.

**********

Then there's Arnold Rowland, and he said this in his affidavit submitted
on the same day as the assassination, too early for it to be especially
believable that someone had already "gotten to him" and "told him what
to say":

"It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at
the surroudding [sic] buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book
[cross-out -- Suppository?] building and noticed that the second floor
from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking
I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic]
powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."

He was obviously mistaken about the man being 15 feet back from the
window, since he wouldn't have been able to see anyone that far back,
but he still said he saw a man holding a rifle.

And this is hardly the only evidence we have. We also have more than
50% of the 216 witnesses saying that all the shots came from the TSBD,
or from that general area. They didn't only say this to the Warren
Commission. Plenty of them also said this in many other circumstances,
such as affidavits submitted on the same day or soon after, newspaper
interviews, FBI interviews, television interviews, and plenty of them
still said it years later. Only a very small minority changed their
claims later. If that weren't enough, more than 76% of the witnesses
said there were three shots fired, no more, no less, and of the
remaining c.24%, most of them said they heard *fewer* than three shots,
not more. Less than 10% said they heard more than three shots.

Then we have the additional circumstance of three shells being found on
the sixth floor, the same number as what the majority of witnesses said
was the number of shots they heard. I will laugh if you say that's
something like a "coincidence," or that the shells were "planted," or
any other such nonsense that so many people say. The vast majority of
people who say things like that have obviously not read more than one
percent of the pages in the 26 WC volumes.

I have read a lot more than one percent of those pages. 100% of them
are on History Matters, as I've known for more than a decade. I will
freely admit that I'm not certain that I've read all of those thousands
of pages, but I know I've read a good many of them, a lot more than the
average American has read.

And as far as I can tell, a lot more of them than you have read,
Research. Do you deny the obvious truth of that? You didn't know that
Euins did indeed say what I claimed he said, and I have now proven you
wrong, beyond all possible doubt. And at least one of the times I
quoted Connally's WC testimony to you in that other thread, you asked me
where I had gotten the quote.

> Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
> the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
> boxes, remember. Not lean out the window

Please name the witnesses who said he was leaning out of the window.
Rowland said he was back from the window. Euins did not say he was
leaning out of the window. Mrs. Cabell did not say that either, nor did
Jackson and Couch. And you can't possibly be talking about Howard
Brennan either. No form of the word "lean" appears in his affidavit
submitted on the same day as the assassination, nor does it appear in
his later affidavit of May 7, 1964. The word appears only once in his
WC testimony, and it is obvious he was not talking about the shooter,
but instead about the three men, James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie
Ray Williams, who were on the fifth floor, the floor below the shooter:


Belin: "What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth
floor that you saw--standing or sitting?"
Brennan: "I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window
sill leaning out."

Where on earth are you getting this business of the shooter leaning out
of the window, Research? Please name the person who said that, please
quote them verbatim, and give us the original source for the quote.

Like I do nearly every time I name and quote a witness.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:22:22 AM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:caeruleo-23D78E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> "bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:b9a65011-b1b7-49bf...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33:29 PM UTC-4, markusp wrote:
>
> >> >> On Monday, September 10, 2012 3:36:56 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> > We know this because there was an eyewitness who SAW a gunman
>
> >> >> > on the sixth floor of the TSBD,
>
> >>
>
> >> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why
>
> >> did
>
> >> he tell the WC it waas a pipe.
>
> >
>
> > He didn't tell the WC it was a pipe. He told the WC that when he first
>
> > saw it it looked like a pipe. He looked away, then he heard the first
>
> > shot, looked back up at the window, and saw the "pipe" fire a second
>
> > shot.
>
>
>
> That's not what the History Matters site posted.
>

And everyone knows anything you read on the internet is true.

You seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious.

> But more likely he had others to help.
>

Right. No one could fire a rifle by himself.

> Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
>
> the head shot came from there?
>

Maybe if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

> >
>
> > Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
>
> > long, narrow object say they also saw another one?
>
>
>
> Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
>
> fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.
>

You really don't need a witness. The physical evidence alone leaves no doubt Oswald was the shooter.

> >
>
> Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
>
> the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
>
> boxes, remember. Not lean out the window

No one said Oswald was leaning out the window. The rifle was sticking out the window. That is what Brennan and Euins saw.

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-ACA124...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> In article <5054...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:caeruleo-23D78E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> >>

>> >> Again? Amos Enius. If he looked up and saw "someone" firing a gun, why
>> >> did

>> >> he tell the WC it was a pipe.

> You read less than 10% of Euins's testimony on History Matters before
> you posted your provably-false claim, didn't you Research?

It wasn't a false claim. I meerly stated the fact the reported the rifle as
a pipe. You are the one who has made it an issue. Overblown as usual. No I
didn't read the rest cause I don't believe he is telling the truth.

> From what you said to me elsewhere about Connally, you
> appear to be tremendously less familiar with Warren Commission testimony
> in general than I am, since you didn't even know at first that I was
> quoting his testimony verbatim (you asked me where I had gotten that
> quote). I would suggest in the future that whenever you are replying to
> me about any claim regarding any WC testimony, no matter whose it is,
> that you read that person's testimony very carefully, from start to
> finish, before you reply to me regarding any claim whatsoever about that
> testimony.

You not talkin to a igit. I knew you were quoting. Just didn't know where
from?

>
> And I'm not saying you're going to do this again, but just in case, I'll
> thank you in advance not to make the silly excuse that someone told
> Euins what to say, or that the testimony was later altered before it was
> printed, and that that's not really what Euins said. Unless you can
> prove either of those claims to be true, you have no possible way of
> knowing for certain that they are true, and you need to admit that.

Show me in the Bell film just where Enius was standing. He claimed he was
standing here on the corner of Elm and Huston when the limo went passed
him. We do have the Bell film. So where is the GREAT eyewitness? I don't
see him standing anywhere even close to the corner. So where is he? Did HE
actually lie about his where-abouts?

>
> I find these excuses to be all too convenient.

> I posted in another thread about a famous assassination author trying to
> pull this same trick on me.

Please I'm not a famous assassination author. But thanks for the accolade.

> I do not ever use such a double standard with WC testimony, ever.

>> >> No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after.
>> >
>> > Why they ran up the knoll is partly because they saw a policeman run up
>> > there, and of course because more than 90% of all the witnesses who
>> > thought shots came from the knoll thought all of the shots had come
>> > from
>> > the knoll, not some of the shots, all of them. But that's also the
>> > same
>> > thing with the ones who thought shots came from the TSBD: almost all of
>> > them thought all of the shots came from the TSBD. More than 90% of the
>> > witnesses who thought shots came from the Triple Underpass thought all
>> > of the shots had come from the Triple Underpass. In fact, no matter
>> > what direction the witnesses named, when you look at all the witnesses
>> > who named that direction, almost all of them said all the shots had
>> > come
>> > from that single direction and no other.
>> >
>> > There were also a lot of people who didn't run up the knoll.

Not according to the Bond film (I think). It shows a pan backward toward
the dep and it shows only two people moving east. A old lady reporter and
a deputy sheriff. EVERYBODY ELSE was moving west.

>> >
>> > And did it ever occur to you that at least some of the people who ran
>> > up
>> > the knoll weren't doing so because they thought gunfire had come from
>> > there, but instead might have thought that the person who had fired
>> > from
>> > one of the buildings was trying to escape across the parking lot toward
>> > the railroad tracks, all of which was behind the knoll? Maybe they
>> > thought the police officer had given chase to a gunman that had just
>> > run
>> > out of the back of the Depository toward the railroad tracks?
>>
>> If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass when the hopped.
>

In the opposite direction of the dep.
>> >
>> > Toward the parking lot and the railroad tracks that are behind the
>> > Depository.

Some eyewitnesses watching from the upper floors ran down the stairs and
then down Elm. Not toward the parking lot and railroad tracks.

>> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear shooter. So don't go off, jest yet.

>> The Medical evidence shows that. There was rear shooter. At least one.

>> But more likely he had others to help.
>
> Why is that "more likely," exactly?

Cause three shots (if that was all) fired in 5.6 seconds is impossible.
Especially when the last two was fired (according to the dictabelt) one
half second apart. With a worn-out bolt action.

>
>> Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
>> the head shot came from there?
>
> Please name the witnesses who said they saw two men holding a long,
> narrow object. Be very careful about that; it ought to be obvious by
> now that I'm fairly good about looking up the original sources, and
> apparently better than you are.

Well look up the Dallas county inmates names. I'd appreciate it.

>
>> > Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
>> > long, narrow object say they also saw another one?

The inmates on the sixth floor directly across the street did. Who did
have a better view of the sixth floor than the stand ups on the ground.

>>
>> Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
>> fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.
>
> Just because they might be the only two witnesses to actually be looking
> right at the rifle as it was firing doesn't mean one can't make a
> witness case without them. Several other people said they saw a man
> holding a rifle, or at least some sort of long, narrow object, in that
> building at least close to the time of the shooting. Robert Jackson
> said this, and don't you dare tell me this isn't on History Matters:
>
> "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all
> around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been
> looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a
> window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right
> on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle or what looked like a
> rifle approximately half of the weapon, I guess I saw, and just as I
> looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I
> saw no one in the window with it."

Why does he say 'two negro men" when there was supposed to be three?

> He looked right after the last shot was fired and saw the rifle being
> drawn back in the window. Naturally he didn't see the shooter because
> by then the shooter was no longer close enough to the window.
>
> Malcolm Couch, riding in the same car as Jackson, said this, also shown
> on History Matters:
>
> 'And after the third shot, Bob Jackson, who was, as I recall, on my
> right, yelled something like, "Look up in the window! There's the rifle!"
> And I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the
> time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor, and seeing about a foot
> of a rifle being the barrel brought into the window.'
>
> Then there's the testimony of the wife of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell:
>
> **********
>
> Mr. HUBERT. What was the first thing you noticed of an extraordinary
> nature, or heard?
> Mrs. CABELL. I heard the shot, and without having to turn my head, I
> jerked my head up.
> Mr. HUBERT. Why did you do that?
> Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and
> I just jerked my head up.
> Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
> Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those
> windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.
>
> **********

Cabell also had an ax to grind. Remember his brother was fired with Dullas.

>
> Then there's Arnold Rowland, and he said this in his affidavit submitted
> on the same day as the assassination, too early for it to be especially
> believable that someone had already "gotten to him" and "told him what
> to say":

I believe it was Powland how testified that there was movement in the
parking lot immediately after the shooting. But I don't know about him
saying there was dep shooters.

>
> "It must have been 5 or 10 minutes later when we were just looking at
> the surroudding [sic] buildings when I looked up at the Texas Book
> [cross-out -- Suppository?] building and noticed that the second floor
> from the top had two adjoining windows which were open, and upon looking
> I saw what I thought was a man standing back about 15 feet from the
> windows and was holding in his arms what appeared to be a hi [sic]
> powered rifle because it looked like it had a scope on it."
>
> He was obviously mistaken about the man being 15 feet back from the
> window, since he wouldn't have been able to see anyone that far back,
> but he still said he saw a man holding a rifle.
>
> And this is hardly the only evidence we have. We also have more than
> 50% of the 216 witnesses saying that all the shots came from the TSBD,
> or from that general area. They didn't only say this to the Warren
> Commission. Plenty of them also said this in many other circumstances,
> such as affidavits submitted on the same day or soon after, newspaper
> interviews, FBI interviews, television interviews, and plenty of them
> still said it years later. Only a very small minority changed their
> claims later. If that weren't enough, more than 76% of the witnesses
> said there were three shots fired, no more, no less, and of the
> remaining c.24%, most of them said they heard *fewer* than three shots,
> not more. Less than 10% said they heard more than three shots.
>

> I have read a lot more than one percent of those pages. 100% of them
> are on History Matters, as I've known for more than a decade.

Great for you. And I do trust your expertise, although not to impressed with
your methods.

> I will
> freely admit that I'm not certain that I've read all of those thousands
> of pages, but I know I've read a good many of them, a lot more than the
> average American has read.
>
> And as far as I can tell, a lot more of them than you have read,
> Research. Do you deny the obvious truth of that? You didn't know that
> Euins did indeed say what I claimed he said, and I have now proven you
> wrong,

No. I believe you believe what he said to be true. I just have trouble
believing Enius.

>
>> Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
>> the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
>> boxes, remember. Not lean out the window
>
> Please name the witnesses who said he was leaning out of the window.
> Rowland said he was back from the window. Euins did not say he was
> leaning out of the window. Mrs. Cabell did not say that either, nor did
> Jackson and Couch. And you can't possibly be talking about Howard
> Brennan either. No form of the word "lean" appears in his affidavit
> submitted on the same day as the assassination, nor does it appear in
> his later affidavit of May 7, 1964. The word appears only once in his
> WC testimony, and it is obvious he was not talking about the shooter,
> but instead about the three men, James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie
> Ray Williams, who were on the fifth floor, the floor below the shooter:
>

One at a time doc. Enius said he saw the rifle pointing out the window
about three foot. That's nearly the entire length of the rifle. Wouldn't
you call that leaning? Humm. Seem like ENIUS forgot about the boxes
sitting in the window, blocking the shooter from doing just that.

>
> Belin: "What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth
> floor that you saw--standing or sitting?"
> Brennan: "I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window
> sill leaning out."

This is an impossible feat. Have you ever seen the inside photos of the
depository? The window sill is only a few inches from the floor. How can
somebody stand with his elbows on the window sill? In order for them to do
that they would have had to lay on the floor. Not stand.

>
> Where on earth are you getting this business of the shooter leaning out
> of the window, Research?

That's the LNer way. Blow-up about such a small thing. Blow a lot of wind
to sound big. So let's get to it.

I must have inferred it from Enius. Cause he claimed the rifle was
sticking out three feet. While we are here let's look at another
unplausible Enius statement. He described the rifle in detail. AS HE SAW
IT. He replyed he had experience cause he had been in ROTC. Correct? He
decribed the bolt section, the barrel, and even the trigger housing.
Correct?

Being a right-handed gun, and it is assumed the shooter would have fired
the rifle as such. Correct. How could ENIUS not see the shooter's face? He
described a bald spot on the shooter's head, but didn't see the side of
his face as the shooter fired the rifle Enius claimed to witness? One
other tidbit that is curious. Enius described the rifle. But did not
describe one of the MOST important features. If he saw the rifle as he
claimed sticking out the window as the teatimony he swore to claimed to
have seen; he could not miss the scope sitting on top. The commission
avoided asking him where or not he saw the scope sitting on top of the
rifle? But he DID NOT describe the scope.

And before we leave, just look at the Brennan testimony. He was asked if
he saw the rifle and he too claimed to see the rifle, but he didn't see it
sticking out the window. He only saw the barrel sticking out. Brennan too
gave a rifle description, but ommitted the scope as well. And he was asked
if he saw the scope and he didn't. Well he said he couldn't remember
wheither he saw the scope or not. So a assume I did not. Just because he
couldn't remember to describe the scope in his own description.

>Please name the person who said that, please
> quote them verbatim, and give us the original source for the quote.
>
> Like I do nearly every time I name and quote a witness.

Well quote their testimonies about the scope. I'm still looking for the
Enius image in the Bell film or any other, Say Zapruder or Altgen or
whatever. I'd like to think they weren't lying but what other alternative
is there?

>
>

[Research]

Well now that I'm just a little bit more familiar with the witnesses you
quoted. Well let's begin.

I said Rowland was the man who reported seeing something in the parking
lot. ON THIS I was wrong. That happens to Bowers. Arnold Rowland was the
eye witness who reported seeing a man on the sixth floor at the southwest
end of the building holding a rifle with a scope on it. And in the Hughes
film this window was open.

As I said in another post Enius was the one who claimed to see the shooter
as he stuck the rifle out the window three feet. And so on and so forth. I
don't believe his testimony, although I believe you do believe it.

Lets taken into consideration the WC testimony of Underwood. Who spoke to
Enius because he overheard Enius reporting to a police officer what he had
seen. Underwood questioned him as soon as he could, just after the officer
encounter. Underwood testified he heard Enius report to the policeman that
the shooter he saw was colored. Underwood ask him was he sure the man was
colored. He said he was. But when asked by the WC, Enius suddenly could
not remember. But neither could he identify Oswald as the man he claimed
to see.

Another star WC testifier was Howard Brennan. He sat on a retaining wall
directly in front of the dep. Unlike Enius there is photo evidence placing
him there. The other piece of information I forgot to say was that Brennan
was shown a photo of the building (Dillard, I think) Brennan claimed to
have seen the 5th floor ear witnesses in the window. But when he was told
to circle the window in the photo, he circled the wrong window.

Victoria Adams was on the fourth floor with Mrs Dorman as she film the
assassination. They were standing in the third set of windows west of the
building. Meaning somewhere in the middle of the building, but not far
from the Norman, Williams and Jarman window. She said the shots came from
further down rather than up toward the snipers nest. second shot, and then
a third shot.

It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as
if it came from the right below rather than from the left above. Possibly
be cause of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the
third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and
encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way
out to the Houston Street dock. As she said she and the other women ran
down the stairs immediately after the shots. They did not see hear Oswald
in the stairwell. The other ear witnesses testimony could not be found.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

"216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/

-RFH

[John Blubaugh]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
> The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
>
> came from the knoll. The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
>
> these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
>
> dep got into the report. But as I found out there were many others who
>
> were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
>
> Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
>
> from the knoll.
>
>
>
> Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
>
> the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators. There were FBI
>
> reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.

Why didn't that bullet have any biological tissue on it considering how
much damage it did? It looked a lot more like a bullet fired into water or
a bale of cotton.....

JB

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual Specter is leading the witness.
That is why the WC did not allow any defense attorneys so there would be
no one to object.
Specter's job was to bias the evidence.

> Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. SPECTER. And how long was the piece of pipe that you saw?
> Mr. EUINS. It was sticking out about that much.
> Mr. SPECTER. About 14 or 15 inches?

Ever look at a Mannlicher-Carcano? You can't see 14 or 15 of inches
sticking out.

Yeah, not try to tell us that Euins wasn't groomed for his testimony.

Now contrast that with what he told Max Holland about WHERE he was
standing and what he saw.
His story changes with how much money he is paid.
Look at all the films of Dealey Plaza and SHOW me where Euins was
standing at the time of the shots.

>
> See that, Research? He said it looked like a pipe AT FIRST. He again
> made it plain that he didn't know the pipe was actually a rifle, or
> where the shot came from on the first shot. But with the second shot he
> SAW the person fire the second shot. And I have quoted all occurrences
> of Euins saying the word "pipe" in his testimony.
>

Prove that he saw the person actually firing the second shot.

And as usual you never look at anything but the WC testimony. Never the
original statements or TV interviews.

Because he made only two hits out of three shots.

>> Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
>> the head shot came from there?
>
> Please name the witnesses who said they saw two men holding a long,
> narrow object. Be very careful about that; it ought to be obvious by

Who made that claim? Another Straw Man argument from the master?

> now that I'm fairly good about looking up the original sources, and
> apparently better than you are.
>
> Obviously.
>
>>> Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
>>> long, narrow object say they also saw another one?
>>
>> Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
>> fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.
>
> Just because they might be the only two witnesses to actually be looking
> right at the rifle as it was firing doesn't mean one can't make a
> witness case without them. Several other people said they saw a man
> holding a rifle, or at least some sort of long, narrow object, in that
> building at least close to the time of the shooting. Robert Jackson
> said this, and don't you dare tell me this isn't on History Matters:

Sure, and one witness said she saw what looked like a machine gun, so
you think that alone proves a machine gun was used. Forget the
witnesses. Witnesses are unreliable. The scientific evidence proves that
3 shots were fired from the sniper's nest. So you ignore it and prefer
eyewitnesses. So therefore you must believe a machine gun was used.

>
> "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all
> around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been
> looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a
> window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right
> on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle or what looked like a
> rifle approximately half of the weapon, I guess I saw, and just as I
> looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I
> saw no one in the window with it."

Long after the shots.

>
> He looked right after the last shot was fired and saw the rifle being
> drawn back in the window. Naturally he didn't see the shooter because
> by then the shooter was no longer close enough to the window.
>

Then how did Euins see the shooter just after the last shot?

Physically impossible. The box of walls would prevent anyone from
standing back 15 feet from the windows.
Never rely on witnesses.

> He was obviously mistaken about the man being 15 feet back from the
> window, since he wouldn't have been able to see anyone that far back,
> but he still said he saw a man holding a rifle.
>
> And this is hardly the only evidence we have. We also have more than
> 50% of the 216 witnesses saying that all the shots came from the TSBD,
> or from that general area. They didn't only say this to the Warren

More of your phony statistics.

> Commission. Plenty of them also said this in many other circumstances,
> such as affidavits submitted on the same day or soon after, newspaper
> interviews, FBI interviews, television interviews, and plenty of them
> still said it years later. Only a very small minority changed their
> claims later. If that weren't enough, more than 76% of the witnesses
> said there were three shots fired, no more, no less, and of the
> remaining c.24%, most of them said they heard *fewer* than three shots,
> not more. Less than 10% said they heard more than three shots.

Why do you keep making up phony statistics and pretending they are true?

>
> Then we have the additional circumstance of three shells being found on
> the sixth floor, the same number as what the majority of witnesses said
> was the number of shots they heard. I will laugh if you say that's
> something like a "coincidence," or that the shells were "planted," or
> any other such nonsense that so many people say. The vast majority of
> people who say things like that have obviously not read more than one
> percent of the pages in the 26 WC volumes.
>
> I have read a lot more than one percent of those pages. 100% of them
> are on History Matters, as I've known for more than a decade. I will
> freely admit that I'm not certain that I've read all of those thousands
> of pages, but I know I've read a good many of them, a lot more than the
> average American has read.
>
> And as far as I can tell, a lot more of them than you have read,
> Research. Do you deny the obvious truth of that? You didn't know that
> Euins did indeed say what I claimed he said, and I have now proven you
> wrong, beyond all possible doubt. And at least one of the times I
> quoted Connally's WC testimony to you in that other thread, you asked me
> where I had gotten the quote.
>

And you didn't know what Euins told Max Holland. So now who has to do
HIS homework? Pot-kettle.

>> Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
>> the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
>> boxes, remember. Not lean out the window
>
> Please name the witnesses who said he was leaning out of the window.
> Rowland said he was back from the window. Euins did not say he was
> leaning out of the window. Mrs. Cabell did not say that either, nor did
> Jackson and Couch. And you can't possibly be talking about Howard
> Brennan either. No form of the word "lean" appears in his affidavit
> submitted on the same day as the assassination, nor does it appear in
> his later affidavit of May 7, 1964. The word appears only once in his
> WC testimony, and it is obvious he was not talking about the shooter,
> but instead about the three men, James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie
> Ray Williams, who were on the fifth floor, the floor below the shooter:
>
>
> Belin: "What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth
> floor that you saw--standing or sitting?"
> Brennan: "I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window
> sill leaning out."
>

Proof again that witnesses are unreliable.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly.

> Charles
>
> http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 9:26 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The DC program ITTC did a test shot from the GK position and determined
>> that Jackie would have been blown away along with JFK with the Z313 shot.
>> They therefore seemed to think they had debunked the GK position. They
>> used a Winchester rifle and the kind of ammo they thought a sniper would
>> use. :-0
>>
>> It is documented in the Zapruder film that Jackie's head was mere inches
>> from JFK's when the fatal headshot hit. It was, in fact, a miracle that
>> she was not killed too. However, unlike the ITTC, the bullet of the Z313
>> shot fragmented and Jackie survived.
>>
>> This is the silliest argument of the assassination.
>
> What is? That the shot came from the rear and she wasn't killed? Rather
> obviously she wouldn't be, as the shot would have exited forward. She was

You miss the irony. The WC said the shot hit the right side of the head,
so obviously WC defenders should say that the bullet exited the left
side of his head and would therefore hit Jackie.

> on his left, not in front of him. Even with fragmentation of the bullet,
> the vast majority of the exiting material, brain, blood, skull, and so
> forth, exited forward, as is plainly obviously in the Zapruder film. It
> is also plainly obvious there that the vast majority of the damage to his
> head is forward of his right ear. This is entirely consistent with what

Damage to the bone does not mean the bullet exited there. There is a
huge area on top of the head. Much bigger than a bullet.
Plus the bullet may have broken up so there could be multiple exits.
Do you agree with Dr. Angel that the semi-circular hole on the forehead
is an exit wound? If so then where did that fragment go on its downward
trajectory?

> was observed at the autopsy. No significant amount of material is claimed
> to have exited to the left. She at the most would have been splattered by
> some of the blood, which of course she was. More blood got on her,
> obviously, when she got back into her seat and had her husband's bloody
> head in her lap.
>

You are talking about the head shot? Show me the blood on her face and
hair or the top of her dress from the waist up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/15/2012 9:26 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

> In article <5053...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "slats" <oj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9Qu3s.662235$Xo4.2...@en-nntp-13.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>>> I wonder why the conspirators gave the Knoll shooter aid and assistance
>>> (let's face it, you can't disappear into thin air with a rifle without
>>> help) but made their second shooter (Oswald) fend for himself. I know, I
>>> know: Oswald was eating lunch at the time.
>>
>> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't involved. The probablity that he was alone,
>> is observed by the nutters as the only possibility. Ignoring witness
>> testimony that shots did come from the knoll.
>
> You are misrepresenting that just as so very many people have done before
> you in the past 48 years since the WC volumes were first published. You
> are making it out as if these witnesses said that only some of the shots
> came from the knoll. The reality is that more than 90% of the witnesses
> who said shots came from the knoll specifically said that they thought all
> of the shots came from the knoll, or else named no other direction in
> their entire statements.
>

Where do you come up with your phony statistics?

>> Many many many witnesses ran
>> up the knoll. Why would they do that? It is in the opposite direction from
>> the dep? Just how can all these eyewitnesses be so wrong?
>
> Wrong about what, exactly? Rather obviously one of the reasons a fair
> number of the ran up the knoll was because a fair number of them thought
> all of the shots came from the knoll. Not some of the shots. All of the
> shots. There were also a fair number of people who didn't run up the

No one said ALL the shots came from the knoll.

> knoll, did you miss that part? More than 90% of the witnesses who said
> shots came from the TSBD said that all the shots came from the TSBD.

So, how many people ran to the TSBD? ONE. Because he was a hunter and
could tell where the shots came from. What percentage is that?

> More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the railroad yards
> behind the knoll said that all of the shots came from the railroad yards.
> More than 90% of all the witnesses who said shots came from the Triple
> Underpass said that all the shots came from the Triple Underpass. No
> matter which direction each witness named, more than 90% of the witnesses
> who named that same direction said all of the shots came from that single
> direction. Not some of the shots. All of the shots.
>
> In stark contrast, less than 10% of the witnesses individually named
> multiple directions for the shots.
>
> Additionally less than 10% of the witnesses said that any individual shot
> sounded louder or closer than any of the other shots.
>
> So tell me, how do these 200+ witnesses offer strong support for multiple
> shooters, when no matter what direction each individual witness named,
> nine out of ten of the other witnesses who named that same direction said
> that all of the gunfire came from that single direction? And most
> especially when more than 90% of them made no mention of any individual
> shot coming from a different distance than the other shots?
>
> This isn't evidence of multiple shooters in multiple locations. It is
> evidence of confusion among the witnesses regarding where the single
> shooter was located.
>

The medical evidence indicates shots from two different directions.
Never rely on witnesses. Look to the scientific evidence.

>> Before the crowd
>> rushed the knoll, one police officer suddenly jumped off his motorcycle
>> and ran up the knoll.
>
> Probably because he was one of the fair number of witnesses who thought
> the single shooter was firing all of the shots from the knoll.
>

Or maybe he heard the chief of police order everyone to go to the triple
overpass? He did not run up to the knoll. He got back on his cycle and
drove around to the other side and went up to the overpass.

>> Who was he chasing? Chasing a phantom?
>
> Apparently so because neither he or any other witness said that they
> actually saw anyone holding a gun on the knoll, until at the earliest,
> more than twelve months after the assassination, and the majority of those
> claims date from long after that, and even that is a very small number as
> well, far less than 10%. But compare that to the people who were already
> saying on the day of the assassination, long before anyone had time to
> "get to them" and "tell them what to say," that they saw a man holding a
> rifle on one of the upper floors of the TSBD.
>

And of course you ignore two important factors. The difference in the
number of shots from each location and the number of witnesses near each
location. More witnesses near the TSBD means more people close enough to
see the shooter.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe because someone cleaned it to do tests on it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not impossible. That time has been beaten by several shooters.
And that time constraint was artificially created by a misunderstanding
about when the shots could be fired and assuming the middle shot missed.

Because the third man was in the shadows.

[bigdog]

I'll bet you can't find a single example of a bullet fired into water or
cotton that ended up bent like CE399 was AND flattened at the base.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <505697cf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Of course, just like the bullet fragments found in the car, there's an
answer that Tony is unwilling to research.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[John Reagor King]

In article <c0745c35-cd06-490f...@googlegroups.com>,

Welcome back, Mr. Blubaugh. I have missed you. ;-)

Now, may I ask what your source is for the bullet having no biological
tissue on it when it was first found? Nowhere in Tomlinson's WC testimony
do I see him saying that there was no blood on the bullet when he first
laid eyes on it.

[John Reagor King]

In article
<f0ad56eb-2e2e-4b78...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> "216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/

Great link, I use it quite frequently. And when one reads through those
original witness statements in their entirety (not just the excerpts that
come up when one clicks on each witness's name, but in the links provided
to the complete statements directly above each excerpt) these things
become readily apparent:

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the Dal-Tex
building either specifically said that all the shots had come from there,

or else named no other direction in their entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the general area
of the intersection of Elm and Houston either specifically said that all
the shots had come from there, or else named no other direction in their
entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the TSBD either
specifically said that all the shots had come from there, or else named no

other direction in their entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the concrete
pergola between the TSBD either specifically said that all the shots had
come from there, or else named no other direction in their entire
statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from behind the fence
on the grassy knoll either specifically said that all the shots had come
from there, or else named no other direction in their entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the railroad yards

behind the knoll either specifically said that all the shots had come from
there, or else named no other direction in their entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses who said shots came from the Triple
Underpass either specifically said that all the shots had come from there,

or else named no other direction in their entire statements.

More than 90% of the witnesses either specifically said that no individual
shot sounded louder or closer than any other shot, or else made no mention
of any such thing.

So it is quite obvious that more than 90% of the witnesses thought all the
shots came from a single location, and simply did not agree with each
other on which location it was, and more than 90% of the witnesses thought
all the shots had come from the same distance from wherever each witness
was standing.

Superb confirmation of a single shooting in a single location firing a
single weapon.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5056...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well now that I'm just a little bit more familiar with the witnesses you
> quoted. Well let's begin.
>
> I said Rowland was the man who reported seeing something in the parking
> lot. ON THIS I was wrong. That happens to Bowers. Arnold Rowland was the
> eye witness who reported seeing a man on the sixth floor at the southwest
> end of the building holding a rifle with a scope on it.

Correct. Was there any other witness who said that they saw such a man,
or saw any long narrow object, anywhere near the west end of the
building?

> And in the Hughes
> film this window was open.
>
> As I said in another post Enius was the one who claimed to see the shooter
> as he stuck the rifle out the window three feet.

But much closer to the east end of the building, correct?

> And so on and so forth. I
> don't believe his testimony, although I believe you do believe it.

And why, exactly, don't you believe his testimony? Because he said the
barrel of the rifle looked like a pipe? The barrel of a rifle does
indeed look like a pipe.

> Lets taken into consideration the WC testimony of Underwood. Who spoke to
> Enius because he overheard Enius reporting to a police officer what he had
> seen. Underwood questioned him as soon as he could, just after the officer
> encounter. Underwood testified he heard Enius report to the policeman that
> the shooter he saw was colored. Underwood ask him was he sure the man was
> colored. He said he was. But when asked by the WC, Enius suddenly could
> not remember. But neither could he identify Oswald as the man he claimed
> to see.

Did it ever occur to you that Underwood might have been incorrectly
remembering what Euins said? Maybe what Euins told Underwood was that
he saw the shooter on the floor above the three colored men? You do
remember that there were three colored men on the fifth floor during the
shooting who were plainly visible to the witnesses below, correct?
Their names were James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie Ray Williams.
We've got photographs of at least two of them looking out of the fifth
floor windows immediately after the shots were fired. If Euins told
Underwood that the shooter was also colored, it is interesting that in
Euins's affidavit on the same day of the assassination he said the
shooter was a white man:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif

Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
himself actually said in his own words?

And see how on the very day of the assassination Euins in his own words,
not quoted by someone else, was saying that he saw the man fire twice?
Obviously he did not still think it was a pipe by then.

And so what if Euins could not identify Oswald as the shooter he saw?
The shooter was more than 50 feet above him, and less than half of him
could be seen through the window. I doubt most witnesses would be able
to later identify that man, even if the man was brought right up to them
later.

> Another star WC testifier was Howard Brennan. He sat on a retaining wall
> directly in front of the dep. Unlike Enius there is photo evidence placing
> him there. The other piece of information I forgot to say was that Brennan
> was shown a photo of the building (Dillard, I think) Brennan claimed to
> have seen the 5th floor ear witnesses in the window. But when he was told
> to circle the window in the photo, he circled the wrong window.

So? It would be a common mistake to not recall later precisely what
window it was. But wasn't the window he circled at least close? Wasn't
the window he circled on an upper floor? And wasn't the window he
circled much closer to the east side of the building than the west side?

> Victoria Adams was on the fourth floor with Mrs Dorman as she film the
> assassination. They were standing in the third set of windows west of the
> building. Meaning somewhere in the middle of the building, but not far
> from the Norman, Williams and Jarman window. She said the shots came from
> further down rather than up toward the snipers nest. second shot, and then
> a third shot.

Yes, and she said that all the shots, not some of them, but all of them,
came from below and to the right. Do you really think that all the
shots were fired from below the fourth floor and to the right of Adams?

She's still quite consistent with more than 90% of the other witnesses,
who were of the impression that whatever direction the shots had come
from, they had all come from the same direction. James Jarman on the
fifth floor said that he had initially thought that all the shots came
from below him and to the left, the opposite direction claimed by Adams.
Danny Arce said all the shots came from the railroad tracks to the west
of the Depository. Virgie Baker said she thought all the shots came
from the Triple Underpass. Welcome Barnett said he thought all the
shots came from the top of the Depository. Jane Berry, who was standing
just west of the Depository, said she thought all the shots had come
from a position further west. Earle Brown thought all the shots had
come from the Depository. Ochus Campbell thought all the shots had come
from near the railroad tracks. John Chism, who was standing on the
north side of Elm in front of the concrete pergola that is between the
TSBD and the picket fence on the knoll, said he thought all the shots
had come from behind him. His wife, Faye, standing beside him, also
said that all the shots had come from behind them. Avery Davis said he
thought all the shots came from the direction of the viaduct which
crosses Elm Street west from where he was standing.

Have you not yet noticed this obvious pattern when reading through all
these witness statements? No matter what direction they named for the
sounds of gunfire, almost all of them either said that all of the sounds
came from that direction, or else named no other direction in their
entire statements.

What does this suggest to you? Surely you do not believe that three
shots were fired from below and to the east of the Depository and that
three more shots were fired from below and to the west of the Depository
and three more shots were fired from the Depository itself? And yet
each witness heard only three of the shots from one of those directions
and didn't hear any of the other six shots from the other two directions?

What is the most obvious and plausible explanation for what all these
witnesses said?

> It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed as
> if it came from the right below rather than from the left above.

Exactly. So she didn't seem to think that anyone was firing from any
floor above her. And there were plenty of witnesses who differed with
her on that. But where did they not differ? On this:

No matter what direction each individual witness named for the sounds of
gunfire, more than nine out of every ten who named that same direction
named only that direction.

You will find a mere handful of witnesses who individually stated that
they thought shots came from multiple directions, such as a single
witness saying that at least one shot had come from the east and at
least one shot had come from the west. Very few said anything even
remotely like that. You'll also find very few witnesses who said that
any shot sounded any louder or closer than any of the other shots. More
than 90% of the witnesses seemed to think that whatever direction the
shots had come from, they had all come from the same distance from

wherever each witness was standing.

Again, what is the most obvious and plausible explanation for this?

> Possibly
> be cause of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the
> third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and
> encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way
> out to the Houston Street dock. As she said she and the other women ran
> down the stairs immediately after the shots. They did not see hear Oswald
> in the stairwell.

Yes, and have you noticed something else? That stairway emerged onto
the first floor right beside the same elevator that Baker and Truly ran
to after the shooting, where Truly called up twice for the elevator to
be sent down, neither time was it sent down, and finally Truly gave up
on the elevator and led Baker up the stairs, the same stairs that Adams
and Styles had just come down. Did you notice that Adams said she never
heard Truly shouting for the elevator? Did you notice that Adams did
not meet Baker and Truly coming up the stairs? Did you notice that she
said she did not see them standing by the elevator as she came out onto
the first floor, nor did she see them anywhere else on the first floor
at that time?

So if Adams was correct on her timing, a full minute after the last shot
was fired Baker and Truly had still gotten nowhere near the elevator
yet, meaning that they took longer to get up to the second floor and see
Oswald in the lunchroom than has often been claimed. This gives Oswald
even more time to get down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor, not
less. And did it ever occur to you that the only reason Adams did not
see Oswald coming down the stairs is that he was too far behind her for
her to see or hear him? If Baker and Truly are still not at the
elevator yet when Adams comes out on the first floor right beside the
elevator, then Oswald can be more than one flight of stairs behind
Adams, or could just be starting down the stairway on the sixth floor,
and still quite easily make it to the lunchroom before Baker and Truly.

And also did you notice that while she said she didn't see Oswald on the
stairs, she also didn't see any other man on the stairs either? Yet
we've got multiple witness statements of a man holding a rifle on one of
the upper floors, including some of them saying they saw and heard the
rifle being fired. Fascinating that so many people make so much about
Adams not seeing Oswald coming down the stairs but never mention that
she didn't see any other man coming down the stairs either, and whether
the shooter was Oswald or not, he had to get down to the first floor and
out of the building somehow, eh?

> The other ear witnesses testimony could not be found.

What other ear witness testimony could not be found? Surely you are not
talking about Sandra Styles, who ran down the stairs with Victoria
Adams? If you are, perhaps you can explain what this is then:

"I recall that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 while watching the
motorcade at sometime between 12:15 PM and 12:30 PM, possibly about
12:20 I heard shots but thought at the time that they were fireworks. I
was unaware of the place the shots came from. I saw people running and
others lie down on the ground and realized something was happening but
did not know exactly what was happening. VICTORIA ADAMS and I left the
office at this time, went down the back stairs and left the building at
the back door. We then went around to the side of the building where we
saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told
by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that
area. I then re-entered the building through the front door, took the
elevator to the fourth floor and returned to my office. I did not see
any strangers or LEE HARVEY OSWALD between the time I left my office and
returned to it inside the building, however I saw many persons milling
around outside the building and did not recognize any particular person."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0
353b.htm

See how that's her in her own words, not what someone else by hearsay
claimed she said? And that is most definitely in Warren Commission
Volume 22 as originally printed in September, 1964, and it is also quite
obviously on History Matters as the link above shows. Notice how she,
just like Adams, made no mention of Oswald or any other man being on the
stairs as she and Adams were coming down? Notice how she, just like
Adams, said nothing about meeting Baker and Truly coming up the stairs
while the two women were going down? Notice how she, just like Adams,
made no mention of Baker and Truly being anywhere on the first floor
when the two women got there?

And I'm not saying you're going to do this again, but just in case, I

will thank you in advance not to claim that someone told her what to say
here, or that this statement as typed was not what she really said on
March 19, 1964. I have recently read later statements made by her in
later years, and she never once denied giving this statement that I have
quoted above, nor did she ever claim that anyone had told her what to
say in it.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5056...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

No he did not report the rifle as a pipe. He said it looked like a pipe
at first. The barrel of a rifle does indeed look like a pipe. But he
then said that when he later saw the rifle fire, he could also see more
of it and could tell that it was definitely a rifle. And what about his
affidavit submitted on the day of the assassination? The word "pipe"
appears nowhere in it. Instead he said this:

"I saw a man in a window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice. He then
stepped back behind some boxes. I could tell the gun was a rifle and it
sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. I saw just a
little bit of the barrel, and some of the trigger housing. This was a
white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few
seconds. As far as I know I have never seen this man before."

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif

> You are the one who has made it an issue. Overblown as usual.

No, you are the one who made the single word "pipe" a gigantic issue,
and ignored and ignored and ignored everything else Euins said.

Overblown as usual.

> No I
> didn't read the rest cause I don't believe he is telling the truth.

Lol! And there you admit it. You can't read the whole thing anyway,
even if you don't believe he was telling the truth? How do you know if
you don't read the whole thing that he might say something farther down
that might convince you to reconsider? And on what basis, exactly, do
you believe that he wasn't telling the truth? Is this going to be
another unproven claim that someone told him what to say?

> > From what you said to me elsewhere about Connally, you
> > appear to be tremendously less familiar with Warren Commission testimony
> > in general than I am, since you didn't even know at first that I was
> > quoting his testimony verbatim (you asked me where I had gotten that
> > quote). I would suggest in the future that whenever you are replying to
> > me about any claim regarding any WC testimony, no matter whose it is,
> > that you read that person's testimony very carefully, from start to
> > finish, before you reply to me regarding any claim whatsoever about that
> > testimony.
>
> You not talkin to a igit.

Well, you've already said above that you absolutely refused to read
Euins's testimony past the word "pipe," or at least that you "didn't
read the rest." I usually read through a person's complete, unabridged
testimony, from the first word to the last word, before I decide whether
or not they're telling the truth, and whether or not what they say is
consistent with what the majority the witnesses said.

> I knew you were quoting. Just didn't know where
> from?

Meaning that you are not as familiar with the testimony as I am, because
I would have recognized where that quote had come from years ago, even
if the person quoting it had not only not given the source, but not even
named who they were quoting. Now don't mistake me, I am not claiming I
can do that with anywhere near every sentence of every testimony of all
of the 552 witnesses who testified before the WC. But with those
particular sentences from Connally's testimony I sure can, as many times
as I've quoted them myself here since 2003.

> > And I'm not saying you're going to do this again, but just in case, I'll
> > thank you in advance not to make the silly excuse that someone told
> > Euins what to say, or that the testimony was later altered before it was
> > printed, and that that's not really what Euins said. Unless you can
> > prove either of those claims to be true, you have no possible way of
> > knowing for certain that they are true, and you need to admit that.
>
> Show me in the Bell film just where Enius was standing. He claimed he was
> standing here on the corner of Elm and Huston when the limo went passed
> him. We do have the Bell film. So where is the GREAT eyewitness? I don't
> see him standing anywhere even close to the corner. So where is he? Did HE
> actually lie about his where-abouts?

You can't be serious. Here is the film by Mark Bell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-BqH2Xh04

He was shooting from so far away from Euins and panned past that area so
quickly I don't see how anyone can tell whether Euins is visible or not.
Every one of those people are too blurry. It would be impossible to
identify the majority of them. And did it ever occur to you that
because Euins was only 15 at the time, he might be a good deal shorter
than most of the other bystanders? He would also be facing away from
the camera if he was where he said he was, so how on earth can you or
anyone else say with anything even remotely close to certainty that he
isn't there in the film?

And here are some other versions of the film which slow it down and zoom
in at times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmeQicc6YE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYTOTpz6KG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N7fmk3cYuY

I see several people standing near the southwest corner of the
intersection facing away from the camera, and I plainly see a couple of
people, one who is wearing what appears to be wearing a dark sweater,
and another who looks like he is wearing a light-colored long-sleeved
shirt, who look to me like they might be Black boys or men. How do you
know one of them isn't Euins?

This, this is your evidence that Euins wasn't telling the truth?

> > I find these excuses to be all too convenient.
> > I posted in another thread about a famous assassination author trying to
> > pull this same trick on me.
>
> Please I'm not a famous assassination author. But thanks for the accolade.

You take it as a compliment that you are just as woefully inconsistent
in your claims as many of them are? And you already admit that you
don't even bother to read someone's testimony all the way through before
you decide that they're not telling the truth.

> >> >> No that's why at least a hundred people ran up the knoll after.
> >> >
> >> > Why they ran up the knoll is partly because they saw a policeman run up
> >> > there, and of course because more than 90% of all the witnesses who
> >> > thought shots came from the knoll thought all of the shots had come
> >> > from
> >> > the knoll, not some of the shots, all of them. But that's also the
> >> > same
> >> > thing with the ones who thought shots came from the TSBD: almost all of
> >> > them thought all of the shots came from the TSBD. More than 90% of the
> >> > witnesses who thought shots came from the Triple Underpass thought all
> >> > of the shots had come from the Triple Underpass. In fact, no matter
> >> > what direction the witnesses named, when you look at all the witnesses
> >> > who named that direction, almost all of them said all the shots had
> >> > come
> >> > from that single direction and no other.
> >> >
> >> > There were also a lot of people who didn't run up the knoll.
>
> Not according to the Bond film (I think). It shows a pan backward toward
> the dep and it shows only two people moving east. A old lady reporter and
> a deputy sheriff. EVERYBODY ELSE was moving west.

If you're talking about Wilma Bond, she only took still photos. The
Bell film we talked about above never pans back to the intersection of
Elm and Houston until much later, so it doesn't show what any of those
people did right after the shooting. I think you might be talking about
the film by Robert Hughes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEPyzR1c_mc

And yes indeed there, after filming people running toward the grassy
knoll, he stopped and then resumed filming at the intersection and it
does indeed show almost everyone running west except for a man and woman
walking east. So? How do you know that those people also went as far
as running up the grassy knoll? He didn't follow them with the camera
to see if they ran down that far and then ran up the knoll. And did it
ever occur to you that a lot of people ran down that way simply because
they saw a lot of other people running down that way, not necessarily
because every one of them thought that's where the sounds of the gunfire
came from? Some witnesses did indeed later say that's why they ran
toward the knoll, simply because they saw other people running toward
the knoll.

But there is further support for my position that a lot of people, a
lot, didn't run up the knoll or even toward the knoll. We have recorded
statements from more than 200 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, and plenty of
them said they did not run toward the knoll, or specifically said they
went in a different direction after the shooting, etc. And it has been
estimated that there might have been twice as many people in Dealey
Plaza as the ones we have recorded statements from, so unless nearly all
400 of them ran up the knoll, which is clearly not the case, then I was
indeed correct when I said there were also a lot of people who didn't
run up the knoll.

> >> > Toward the parking lot and the railroad tracks that are behind the
> >> > Depository.
>
> Some eyewitnesses watching from the upper floors ran down the stairs and
> then down Elm. Not toward the parking lot and railroad tracks.

People running up the knoll were also running toward the parking lot and
the railroad tracks, both of which are behind the knoll.

> >> I'm not saying Oswald wasn't a rear shooter. So don't go off, jest yet.
> >> The Medical evidence shows that. There was rear shooter. At least one.
> >> But more likely he had others to help.
> >
> > Why is that "more likely," exactly?
>
> Cause three shots (if that was all) fired in 5.6 seconds is impossible.

Who says all three shots were fired within no more than 5.6 seconds?
Where on earth are you getting that from? That is not what the majority
of the witnesses said.

> Especially when the last two was fired (according to the dictabelt) one
> half second apart. With a worn-out bolt action.

According to the dictabelt? Are you not aware that there is no
consensus among acoustics experts on whether or not there were any shots
recorded on the dictabelt at all? Only some of the experts have said
that, not nearly all of them, and the ones who do say it differ on
exactly where on the dictabelt the shots occur, and they differ in the
relative timing of these supposed shots as well. The dictabelt cannot
be reasonably considered to be a bonafide audio recording of the shots.
It might have recorded the shots, but there is as yet no consensus among
the acoustics experts on that. The findings of the original acoustics
experts who presented their claims about the dictabelt to the HSCA very
quickly came to be disputed by other acoustics experts very soon after
those findings were made public.

> >> Notice that there are two windows on the sixth floor that are open. Maybe
> >> the head shot came from there?
> >
> > Please name the witnesses who said they saw two men holding a long,
> > narrow object. Be very careful about that; it ought to be obvious by
> > now that I'm fairly good about looking up the original sources, and
> > apparently better than you are.
>
> Well look up the Dallas county inmates names. I'd appreciate it.

The only one I know of is Johnny L. Powell (also called John Powell in
some writings about the assassination). As far as I can tell the origin
of this is a December 19, 1978 Dallas Morning News article by Earl Golz
which is titled "Witnesses Overlooked in JFK Probe":

**********

Johnny L. Powell, an inmate in the county jail at the time of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy, recently told the Dallas
Morning News he and others in his cell watched two men with a rifle in
the 6th-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository across the
street. When he looked, the men were "fooling with" a scope on the
rifle, Powell said.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/36/3618-001.gif

**********

There is a good deal more, which you can read for yourself, but
essentially Powell said he saw two men doing something with a scope on
one rifle, not two men who were each holding a separate rifle. He also
said the men appeared to have darker skin than White men. It appears
that Powell was never recorded prior to 1978 making any statement about
the assassination. He also said here that other inmates saw these two
men as well, but as far as I know no other person who was an inmate at
the time has come forward to corroborate his story.

Later in the article Carolyn Walther is quoted as saying she saw two men
in a window on an upper floor, but that only one of them was holding a
rifle. She also said this to the FBI on December 5, 1963. And she said
that they were in a window near the east end of the building.

> >> > Did the majority of the witnesses who said they saw a man holding a
> >> > long, narrow object say they also saw another one?
>
> The inmates on the sixth floor directly across the street did.

No, one inmate said he saw two men doing something with one rifle, not
two men each holding a separate rifle. I do not know of any other
inmates who have ever corroborated him.

> Who did
> have a better view of the sixth floor than the stand ups on the ground.

Maybe, but there is supposedly a December 15, 1964 FBI report which I
have not been able to find yet which acted on some rumors that the
inmates of the Dallas County Jail might have had a clear view of the
sixth floor of the Depository, and supposedly that report came to the
conclusion that the sixth floor could not be seen from the cells. This
is the only photo I have so far been able to find which is supposedly of
one of the old cells inside the building, and I can't tell that it even
has a window to the outside at all:

http://www.cowcreekmusic.com/uploads/bunksbig.jpg

But maybe some of the cells did? I do not know. Supposedly the FBI
report also says that whatever windows there were were far too high up
to actually look out of or something like that.

> >> Yea. I guess one is a majority. Only two people reported "seeing a shot
> >> fired." Brennan and Enius. You can't make a witness case without them.
> >
> > Just because they might be the only two witnesses to actually be looking
> > right at the rifle as it was firing doesn't mean one can't make a
> > witness case without them. Several other people said they saw a man
> > holding a rifle, or at least some sort of long, narrow object, in that
> > building at least close to the time of the shooting. Robert Jackson
> > said this, and don't you dare tell me this isn't on History Matters:
> >
> > "Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all
> > around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been
> > looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a
> > window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right
> > on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle or what looked like a
> > rifle approximately half of the weapon, I guess I saw, and just as I
> > looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I
> > saw no one in the window with it."
>
> Why does he say 'two negro men" when there was supposed to be three?

Maybe because one of them was farther back from the window at the time?

> > He looked right after the last shot was fired and saw the rifle being
> > drawn back in the window. Naturally he didn't see the shooter because
> > by then the shooter was no longer close enough to the window.
> >
> > Malcolm Couch, riding in the same car as Jackson, said this, also shown
> > on History Matters:
> >
> > 'And after the third shot, Bob Jackson, who was, as I recall, on my
> > right, yelled something like, "Look up in the window! There's the rifle!"
> > And I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the
> > time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor, and seeing about a foot
> > of a rifle being the barrel brought into the window.'
> >
> > Then there's the testimony of the wife of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > Mr. HUBERT. What was the first thing you noticed of an extraordinary
> > nature, or heard?
> > Mrs. CABELL. I heard the shot, and without having to turn my head, I
> > jerked my head up.
> > Mr. HUBERT. Why did you do that?
> > Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and
> > I just jerked my head up.
> > Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
> > Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those
> > windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.
> >
> > **********
>
> Cabell also had an ax to grind. Remember his brother was fired with Dullas.

That may be, but it doesn't prove that Mrs. Cabell was lying.

> > Then there's Arnold Rowland, and he said this in his affidavit submitted
> > on the same day as the assassination, too early for it to be especially
> > believable that someone had already "gotten to him" and "told him what
> > to say":
>
> I believe it was Powland how testified that there was movement in the
> parking lot immediately after the shooting. But I don't know about him
> saying there was dep shooters.

That's because he never said there were "shooters," plural. He said he
saw one man with a rifle.

What is wrong with my methods, when I'm producing quite a few verbatim
quotations along with the original sources?

> > I will
> > freely admit that I'm not certain that I've read all of those thousands
> > of pages, but I know I've read a good many of them, a lot more than the
> > average American has read.
> >
> > And as far as I can tell, a lot more of them than you have read,
> > Research. Do you deny the obvious truth of that? You didn't know that
> > Euins did indeed say what I claimed he said, and I have now proven you
> > wrong,
>
> No. I believe you believe what he said to be true. I just have trouble
> believing Enius.

And yet you have given practically no support for not believing him.
Not seeing him in the Bell film certainly isn't credible support.
Reading his testimony no further than when he said "pipe" to find out if
he continued to believe it was nothing more is not credible support
either.

> >> Oswald or nobody else was leaning out the window. That was the purpose of
> >> the boxes, remember. Oswald was supposed to have rested the rifle on the
> >> boxes, remember. Not lean out the window
> >
> > Please name the witnesses who said he was leaning out of the window.
> > Rowland said he was back from the window. Euins did not say he was
> > leaning out of the window. Mrs. Cabell did not say that either, nor did
> > Jackson and Couch. And you can't possibly be talking about Howard
> > Brennan either. No form of the word "lean" appears in his affidavit
> > submitted on the same day as the assassination, nor does it appear in
> > his later affidavit of May 7, 1964. The word appears only once in his
> > WC testimony, and it is obvious he was not talking about the shooter,
> > but instead about the three men, James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie
> > Ray Williams, who were on the fifth floor, the floor below the shooter:
>
> One at a time doc. Enius said he saw the rifle pointing out the window
> about three foot.

No he didn't. He held up his hands to Arlen Specter to show how far the
rifle was sticking out of the window. Specter then asked if that was
about 3 feet. Euins did not answer yes to that; instead he said "It was

enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to

stick out the window." Euins never once said that Specter was right
when Specter said about 3 feet. I have already quoted the entire
exchange to you above.

> That's nearly the entire length of the rifle. Wouldn't
> you call that leaning?

Since Euins never said nearly the entire length of the rifle was
sticking out of the window, I would say no.

> Humm. Seem like ENIUS forgot about the boxes
> sitting in the window, blocking the shooter from doing just that.

If you had read further on in his testimony you would have found that he
said quite a bit about those boxes actually. I've also quoted him above
in my present article mentioning the boxes in his same-day affidavit.

Now let's get back to your claim. Name a witness who specifically said
the shooter was leaning out of the window. Saying that three feet of
the rifle was sticking out of the window isn't the same thing as the
witness specifically saying that the man holding the rifle was leaning
out of the window. I do not know of a single witness who said the
shooter was leaning out of the window.

> > Belin: "What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth
> > floor that you saw--standing or sitting?"
> > Brennan: "I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window
> > sill leaning out."
>
> This is an impossible feat. Have you ever seen the inside photos of the
> depository? The window sill is only a few inches from the floor.

Lol. Not only have I seen those photos, I've been inside the building
itself many times, and in the sniper's nest, for example, the windows
have been left as they were at the time. The bottom sill is a lot more
than "a few inches" from the floor. It is over a foot above the floor
at the very least.

And those are photos of the sixth floor you're talking about. These men
leaning out the window with their elbows on the sill were on the fifth
floor. How do you know that the sills on the fifth floor windows were
as low as those on the sixth? I'm not sure there even are any photos of
the fifth floor windows taken from inside, but there may well be. If
so, I have forgotten them if I've ever seen them before.

And have you not seen the famous Tom Dillard photo that shows Harold
Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams looking out the fifth floor windows?
True, they aren't resting their elbows on the sill in that photo, but
the sill does seem to be at the level of somewhere above their waists.

Did it ever occur to you that they might have been kneeling on the floor
watching the motorcade, not standing?

> How can
> somebody stand with his elbows on the window sill?

Brennan would obviously not be able to tell from below whether they were
standing or kneeling.

> In order for them to do
> that they would have had to lay on the floor.

Lol, even the sills on the sixth floor weren't quite that low.
Obviously, since the shooter was not laying down when firing the shots.

> > Where on earth are you getting this business of the shooter leaning out
> > of the window, Research?
>
> That's the LNer way. Blow-up about such a small thing. Blow a lot of wind
> to sound big. So let's get to it.

That seems to be your way more than mine. You go on and on and on about
a single word, "pipe." You go on and on and on about "leaning" and so
forth. I've asked you this before: do you ever tire of accusing others
of things that you are obviously more guilty of than they are? You've
done this many times now. The pot calling the kettle black.
Double-standards.

> I must have inferred it from Enius. Cause he claimed the rifle was
> sticking out three feet.

No he didn't.

> While we are here let's look at another
> unplausible Enius statement.

Yes, let's.

> He described the rifle in detail. AS HE SAW
> IT. He replyed he had experience cause he had been in ROTC. Correct? He
> decribed the bolt section, the barrel, and even the trigger housing.
> Correct?

No. He never said he saw the bolt section.

> Being a right-handed gun, and it is assumed the shooter would have fired
> the rifle as such. Correct. How could ENIUS not see the shooter's face?

Again, if you had read the entire testimony you would have not have had
to ask that:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man
who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because
he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.

**********

> He
> described a bald spot on the shooter's head, but didn't see the side of
> his face as the shooter fired the rifle Enius claimed to witness?

If the man's head was tilted downward, as Euins said, his face would
more likely than not be in shadow. Remember the man was firing at an
angle downward.

> One
> other tidbit that is curious. Enius described the rifle. But did not
> describe one of the MOST important features. If he saw the rifle as he
> claimed sticking out the window as the teatimony he swore to claimed to
> have seen; he could not miss the scope sitting on top.

I don't agree. Euins was more than 50 feet below the shooter. It would
be harder to see the scope on top of the rifle than it would be to see
the trigger on the bottom of the rifle.

> The commission
> avoided asking him where or not he saw the scope sitting on top of the
> rifle? But he DID NOT describe the scope.

True.

> And before we leave, just look at the Brennan testimony. He was asked if
> he saw the rifle and he too claimed to see the rifle, but he didn't see it
> sticking out the window. He only saw the barrel sticking out. Brennan too
> gave a rifle description, but ommitted the scope as well.

Then if he only saw the barrel it is perfectly plausible that he would
not have seen enough of the rifle to see the scope. And he was also
more than 50 feet below the rifle.

> >Please name the person who said that, please
> > quote them verbatim, and give us the original source for the quote.
> >
> > Like I do nearly every time I name and quote a witness.
>
> Well quote their testimonies about the scope.

As the word "scope" appears nowhere in the Euins testimony I have
nothing to quote there. You apparently don't need me to quote Brennan
since you seem to be already aware that he said he didn't notice a
scope. Who else would you like me to quote?

> I'm still looking for the
> Enius image in the Bell film

I don't see how you're ever going to be able to tell for certain if
Euins appears in the Bell film or not.

> or any other, Say Zapruder

Zapruder filmed from much too far away from the intersection to show any
clear confirmation or lack of it regarding Euins.

> or Altgen or
> whatever.

The Altgens photo does not show the southwest corner of the intersection.

> I'd like to think they weren't lying but what other alternative
> is there?

I've already named several alternatives, including the possibility that
Euins is indeed there in the Bell film and you and I just don't know
which one he is.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/17/2012 9:41 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <505697cf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 9/16/2012 8:35 PM, John Blubaugh wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 9:21:26 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:
>>>> The Willis, Newmans, and many others on the knoll area claimed the shots
>>>>
>>>> came from the knoll. The investigators of both the WC and HSCA avoided
>>>>
>>>> these testimonies. Only the testimonies that said the shots came from the
>>>>
>>>> dep got into the report. But as I found out there were many others who
>>>>
>>>> were in the plaza area that said the shots came from the knoll. Lovelady,
>>>>
>>>> Shelley and others were standing on the dep steps and said the shots came
>>>>
>>>> from the knoll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as many of the dep employees said they saw Oswald just minutes before
>>>>
>>>> the shots rang out were ignored by the investigators. There were FBI
>>>>
>>>> reports, but their statements were not part of the WC findings.
>>>
>>> Why didn't that bullet have any biological tissue on it considering how
>>> much damage it did? It looked a lot more like a bullet fired into water or
>>> a bale of cotton.....
>>>
>>> JB
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe because someone cleaned it to do tests on it.
>
>
> Of course, just like the bullet fragments found in the car, there's an
> answer that Tony is unwilling to research.
>
>

My articles explain the bullet fragments found in the car. WC defenders
can't.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like the Henry Hurt bullet?

[Anthony Marsh]

How long will you keep posting phony statistics?

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-1A21F5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Well here you are speculating. NO. You said maybe he thought... You are
dening he heard what Enius told him. He was a trained journalist, listening
skills and all. Not some dumb snot-nosed kid.

>You do
> remember that there were three colored men on the fifth floor during the
> shooting who were plainly visible to the witnesses below, correct?
> Their names were James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie Ray Williams.

Yea, yea, Williams and Norman was in the windows after the shots. In the
Powell and Dillard photos. So what These were taken about 10 minutes after
the shots. They had already went to the west of the building and returned.
Just because they were photographed in the window doesn't mean anything.
Where are the three stooges in the Hughes film. Or the Bronson flim, or
any other of the photo evidence before the shot. Nowhere Man. You said it
best. You said Jarvis thought the shots came from below. And Oswald was
supposed to have been firing shots directly over his head. No I don't
believe them either. But that don't mean I believe Oswald wasn't involved.
I just don't believe the LONE NUT THEORY. Theory, that's all it is.

> We've got photographs of at least two of them looking out of the fifth
> floor windows immediately after the shots were fired. If Euins told
> Underwood that the shooter was also colored, it is interesting that in
> Euins's affidavit on the same day of the assassination he said the
> shooter was a white man:
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif

This link is bogus. Maybe you wrote ci when you meant CIA. your home
office? I don't need bogus links. I've seen Dillard. But this was taken
much later after the shots. And only two of them are in it not three.

>
> Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
> himself actually said in his own words?
>
> And see how on the very day of the assassination Euins in his own words,
> not quoted by someone else, was saying that he saw the man fire twice?
> Obviously he did not still think it was a pipe by then.
>
> And so what if Euins could not identify Oswald as the shooter he saw?
> The shooter was more than 50 feet above him, and less than half of him
> could be seen through the window.

Why couldn't he see but half of the suspect? If you remember, the bottom
of the window is only inches off the floor. And the boxes were stacked in
the window. And he claimed to be right in front of the window? I don't
believe him.

>I doubt most witnesses would be able
> to later identify that man, even if the man was brought right up to them
> later.

Preempted? Really? Maybe that is beacuse your star witness Brennan saw
Oswald on TV, twice before and still could not pick him out of the
line-up.

>
>> Another star WC testifier was Howard Brennan. He sat on a retaining wall
>> directly in front of the dep. Unlike Enius there is photo evidence
>> placing
>> him there. The other piece of information I forgot to say was that
>> Brennan
>> was shown a photo of the building (Dillard, I think) Brennan claimed to
>> have seen the 5th floor ear witnesses in the window. But when he was told
>> to circle the window in the photo, he circled the wrong window.
>
> So? It would be a common mistake to not recall later precisely what
> window it was. But wasn't the window he circled at least close? Wasn't
> the window he circled on an upper floor? And wasn't the window he
> circled much closer to the east side of the building than the west side?

Yeah,yeah, yeah. Just another simple mistake?

>
>> Victoria Adams was on the fourth floor with Mrs Dorman as she film the
>> assassination. They were standing in the third set of windows west of the
>> building. Meaning somewhere in the middle of the building, but not far
>> from the Norman, Williams and Jarman window. She said the shots came from
>> further down rather than up toward the snipers nest. second shot, and
>> then
>> a third shot.
>
> Yes, and she said that all the shots, not some of them, but all of them,
> came from below and to the right. Do you really think that all the
> shots were fired from below the fourth floor and to the right of Adams?

What does that prove? Brennan is allowed mistakes. But a distraught woman
is held to the grinding stone? One reason. To support the lone gunman
theory.

>
> She's still quite consistent with more than 90% of the other witnesses,
> who were of the impression that whatever direction the shots had come
> from, they had all come from the same direction. James Jarman on the
> fifth floor said that he had initially thought that all the shots came
> from below him and to the left, the opposite direction claimed by Adams.

Yea. Exactly. He was on the floor directly positioned below the sniper's
window and he thought the shots came from below. That's why all three ran
to the west side of the building. At a time when the shots were supposed
to be ringing in their ears?

> Danny Arce said all the shots came from the railroad tracks to the west
> of the Depository. Virgie Baker said she thought all the shots came
> from the Triple Underpass. Welcome Barnett said he thought all the
> shots came from the top of the Depository. Jane Berry, who was standing
> just west of the Depository, said she thought all the shots had come
> from a position further west. Earle Brown thought all the shots had
> come from the Depository. Ochus Campbell thought all the shots had come
> from near the railroad tracks. John Chism, who was standing on the
> north side of Elm in front of the concrete pergola that is between the
> TSBD and the picket fence on the knoll, said he thought all the shots
> had come from behind him. His wife, Faye, standing beside him, also
> said that all the shots had come from behind them. Avery Davis said he
> thought all the shots came from the direction of the viaduct which
> crosses Elm Street west from where he was standing.
>
> Have you not yet noticed this obvious pattern when reading through all
> these witness statements? No matter what direction they named for the
> sounds of gunfire, almost all of them either said that all of the sounds
> came from that direction, or else named no other direction in their
> entire statements.

Not all. Phil Willis standing across from the sniper's window said the
last shot came from the knoll. The Bill Newman said the last shot was
fired from behind him.

I think this is because Baker was mistaken about how long it took him.
Shelley and Lovelady was standing in the steps when Adams and Styles came
out of the building. They ran down Elm. Then Shelly and Lovelady walked
down the Elm Street extention to the end of the building at the railroad
tracks and parking lot entrance and looked around. Saw nothing but the
crowd moving up the knoll. They turned around and started back toward the
front of the building when they saw Truely and Baker. So it had to be MORE
than 90 seconds before they even entered the building. More like five
minutes. Then they dougled around beore they went up the stairs. So by the
time they met Oswald on the 2nd floor could have been as much as ten
minutes. Not 90 seconds.

>
> So if Adams was correct on her timing, a full minute after the last shot
> was fired Baker and Truly had still gotten nowhere near the elevator
> yet, meaning that they took longer to get up to the second floor and see
> Oswald in the lunchroom than has often been claimed. This gives Oswald
> even more time to get down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor, not
> less. And did it ever occur to you that the only reason Adams did not
> see Oswald coming down the stairs is that he was too far behind her for
> her to see or hear him? If Baker and Truly are still not at the
> elevator yet when Adams comes out on the first floor right beside the
> elevator, then Oswald can be more than one flight of stairs behind
> Adams, or could just be starting down the stairway on the sixth floor,
> and still quite easily make it to the lunchroom before Baker and Truly.
>
> And also did you notice that while she said she didn't see Oswald on the
> stairs, she also didn't see any other man on the stairs either? Yet
> we've got multiple witness statements of a man holding a rifle on one of
> the upper floors, including some of them saying they saw and heard the
> rifle being fired. Fascinating that so many people make so much about
> Adams not seeing Oswald coming down the stairs but never mention that
> she didn't see any other man coming down the stairs either, and whether
> the shooter was Oswald or not, he had to get down to the first floor and
> out of the building somehow, eh?

What about Garner? She went down the stairs too. But stopped on the 2nd
floorand was in the office beside the stairs. She could see the stairwell
and elevators, but she never seen Oswald come out of the stairs either.
Didn't hear him or see him either.

>
>> The other ear witnesses testimony could not be found.
>
> What other ear witness testimony could not be found? Surely you are not
> talking about Sandra Styles, who ran down the stairs with Victoria
> Adams? If you are, perhaps you can explain what this is then:
>
> "I recall that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 while watching the
> motorcade at sometime between 12:15 PM and 12:30 PM, possibly about
> 12:20 I heard shots but thought at the time that they were fireworks. I
> was unaware of the place the shots came from. I saw people running and
> others lie down on the ground and realized something was happening but
> did not know exactly what was happening. VICTORIA ADAMS and I left the
> office at this time, went down the back stairs and left the building at
> the back door. We then went around to the side of the building where we
> saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told
> by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that
> area. I then re-entered the building through the front door, took the
> elevator to the fourth floor and returned to my office. I did not see
> any strangers or LEE HARVEY OSWALD between the time I left my office and
> returned to it inside the building, however I saw many persons milling
> around outside the building and did not recognize any particular person."
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0

This link is bogus. It doesn't go anywhere. Maybe you made it up. Why did
you do that?

> 353b.htm
>
> See how that's her in her own words, not what someone else by hearsay
> claimed she said? And that is most definitely in Warren Commission
> Volume 22 as originally printed in September, 1964, and it is also quite
> obviously on History Matters as the link above shows. Notice how she,
> just like Adams, made no mention of Oswald or any other man being on the
> stairs as she and Adams were coming down? Notice how she, just like
> Adams, said nothing about meeting Baker and Truly coming up the stairs
> while the two women were going down? Notice how she, just like Adams,
> made no mention of Baker and Truly being anywhere on the first floor
> when the two women got there?
>

Maybe cause He wasn't on the sixth floor. Makes as much cents as any of your
other ramblings.

>

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-2919AB...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Why do you post links that don't go anywhere?

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-845424...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Maybe just maybe the witnesses disagreed with the other witnesses about
where ALL the shots came from. But it does point to multiple positions
where shots could have been fired by multiple shooters. NOT Oswald alone?

[Research]

"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0745c35-cd06-490f...@googlegroups.com...

Cuse when it bounced off the windshield chrome the tissue stuck to the
windshield, Greer wiped it off whild driving to Parkland. And after
hitting the chrome it bounded unto Connally's leg and was shuffled out in
the hospital where it bounced onto the other stretcher. Oswald used rubber
bullets afterall.

[Anthony Marsh]

Page Break. It's a defect in USENET.
In the old days each line had to be 80 characters long.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5058...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

How on earth does it do that? If there were really shots fired from
multiple positions, wouldn't we have a lot more than 10% of the
witnesses saying the shots came from at least two directions?

[John Reagor King]

In article <5057f059$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Oh, you can prove that my statistics are phony? I'd like to see you try
it.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5058...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-1A21F5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > In article <5056...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lets taken into consideration the WC testimony of Underwood. Who spoke to
> >> Enius because he overheard Enius reporting to a police officer what he
> >> had
> >> seen. Underwood questioned him as soon as he could, just after the
> >> officer
> >> encounter. Underwood testified he heard Enius report to the policeman
> >> that
> >> the shooter he saw was colored. Underwood ask him was he sure the man was
> >> colored. He said he was. But when asked by the WC, Enius suddenly could
> >> not remember. But neither could he identify Oswald as the man he claimed
> >> to see.
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that Underwood might have been incorrectly
> > remembering what Euins said? Maybe what Euins told Underwood was that
> > he saw the shooter on the floor above the three colored men?
>
> Well here you are speculating. NO. You said maybe he thought...

I am not speculating that Euins himself in his original affidavit never
said the shooter was a colored man. I am not speculating that in his WC
testimony he never said the shooter was a colored man. On the first
occasion he himself was writing down his statement. On the second
occasion his words were being taken down by a stenographer as he was
speaking.

Underwood is different. He was testifying more than four months later
about what he *remembered* Euins saying. He was relying on memory that
was more than four months old. He wasn't recording Euins's words at the
same time Euins was speaking. He was not quoting a document written by
Euins.

See the difference?

> You are
> dening he heard what Enius told him.

I am not denying he heard what Euins told him on 11-22-63. I am saying
that by the time Underwood testified on 4-1-64 he was relying on
*memory* to recall what Euins said.

> He was a trained journalist, listening
> skills and all. Not some dumb snot-nosed kid.

Even trained journalists are human and can make mistakes. Did you miss
the part where he didn't even remember Euins's name correctly?

"By that time there was one police officer there and he was a
three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last
name I remember as Eunice."

'He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could
understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.'

> >You do
> > remember that there were three colored men on the fifth floor during the
> > shooting who were plainly visible to the witnesses below, correct?
> > Their names were James Jarman, Harold Norman, and Bonnie Ray Williams.
>
> Yea, yea, Williams and Norman was in the windows after the shots. In the
> Powell and Dillard photos. So what These were taken about 10 minutes after
> the shots.

Lol, ten minutes after the shots? Where on earth are you getting that
from? Dillard was riding in one of the cars that was several vehicles
behind the limo, and he said he took that photo mere seconds after the
last shot was fired. That car then went around the corner onto Elm
following the other cars ahead in the motorcade and only when the car
was going past the knoll did he jump out, but by then he had already
taken the photo we're talking about. And Norman and Williams did not
stay at those windows anywhere close to ten minutes after the shots.
They themselves never said they stayed there anywhere near that long,
nor did any other witness say they did. And several witnesses said they
saw them there before the shooting, and they themselves said they were
looking out of those windows before the shooting.

> They had already went to the west of the building and returned.

Lol, nope.

> Just because they were photographed in the window doesn't mean anything.

They were photographed in the fifth floor window seconds after the last
shot was fired. Have you even read Tom Dillard's testimony?

> Where are the three stooges in the Hughes film. Or the Bronson flim, or
> any other of the photo evidence before the shot. Nowhere Man.

Dillard never said he photographed the Three Stooges. ;-)

> You said it
> best. You said Jarvis thought the shots came from below. And Oswald was
> supposed to have been firing shots directly over his head.

Yes, and I gave that as one of approximately 200 examples of witnesses
thinking all the shots came from a single direction, but differing with
each other regarding which direction it was, because of the acoustical
properties of Dealey Plaza. If you were standing in one place, you
would think the shots were all coming from the east. If you were
standing in another place you would think all the shots were coming from
the west. If you were standing in another place you would think all the
shots were coming from the north. This is a common, everyday phenomenon
of acoustics.

> No I don't
> believe them either. But that don't mean I believe Oswald wasn't involved.
> I just don't believe the LONE NUT THEORY. Theory, that's all it is.

I believe there was only one shooter. The evidence is overwhelming to
support that. But was Oswald the only one involved? I still have a few
questions about that myself. The vast majority of conspiracy theories
do not stand up to close scrutiny, in my opinion. But there are just a
few things that still bother me.

> > We've got photographs of at least two of them looking out of the fifth
> > floor windows immediately after the shots were fired. If Euins told
> > Underwood that the shooter was also colored, it is interesting that in
> > Euins's affidavit on the same day of the assassination he said the
> > shooter was a white man:
> >
> > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif
>
> This link is bogus.

Strange then that I just copied and pasted it into my browser address
window seconds ago and it worked just fine.

> Maybe you wrote ci when you meant CIA. your home
> office?

Har. "ci.dallas" stands for "City of Dallas."

> I don't need bogus links.

It isn't a bogus link. You must have done something wrong when trying
to go to it. I've been to that link, and many others on the City of
Dallas website, many, many, many times. Links on that website have been
produced here many other times by many other posters as well, and you're
the first one I can remember ever saying that one of them is "bogus."
Here's the main page:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

I'm on that page right now, and the link definitely works. Near the
bottom of the page are the links to Box 1, Box 2, Box 3, etc. of the
documents. Here's the link to Box 5:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

Scroll down and you'll find this:

21. Voluntary Statement, by Amos Lee Euins. Statement as a witness in
Dealey Plaza, includes seeing a man fire a rifle, (Photocopy), 11/22/63.
00001284 1 page 05 02 021

I just copied and pasted that right off the page, so the link definitely
isn't bogus. And right at the end of that text is the link to Euins's
affidavit I gave before, and it definitely isn't "bogus," because I just
went right to it again.

According to the full header of your article you are posting to this
group using Microsoft Outlook Express. Did you click on the link? If
so, I don't think that's the way you're supposed to do it. Copy the
link, and then paste it into your browser address window. And if that
still doesn't work, why don't you try asking the other posters here if
they can get to the link? I suspect most of them will answer that they
can, and that the link definitely isn't bogus.

> I've seen Dillard.

Lol, I didn't say that link was to the Dillard photo, I said it was to
Euins's affidavit.

> But this was taken
> much later after the shots.

Seconds after the shots.

> And only two of them are in it not three.

I never said all three of them were in it.

> > Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
> > himself actually said in his own words?
> >
> > And see how on the very day of the assassination Euins in his own words,
> > not quoted by someone else, was saying that he saw the man fire twice?
> > Obviously he did not still think it was a pipe by then.
> >
> > And so what if Euins could not identify Oswald as the shooter he saw?
> > The shooter was more than 50 feet above him, and less than half of him
> > could be seen through the window.
>
> Why couldn't he see but half of the suspect?

Because he wasn't outside of the window?

> If you remember, the bottom
> of the window is only inches off the floor.

I do not "remember" any such thing, and I corrected you about this
yesterday. The bottom sills of the windows were more than a foot off

the floor.

> And the boxes were stacked in
> the window. And he claimed to be right in front of the window?

The shooter was quite obviously *kneeling*.

> I don't
> believe him.

Oh I see. So when looking up at a person who is more than fifty feet
above you kneeling by a window, you're going to be able to see more than
half of that person? And you say you've seen the Dillard photo. You
can see more than half of the bodies of Norman and Williams? I can only
see them from about mid-chest up. And they're *less* than fifty feet
above the ground. So you say you don't believe Euins saw less than half
of a man who was on a *higher* floor? ROFL.

> >I doubt most witnesses would be able
> > to later identify that man, even if the man was brought right up to them
> > later.
>
> Preempted? Really? Maybe that is beacuse your star witness Brennan saw
> Oswald on TV, twice before and still could not pick him out of the
> line-up.

When did I ever say that Brennan was my star witness? In fact, when did
I ever say that I thought Brennan was especially credible? You're
confusing me with somebody else, apparently.

> >> Another star WC testifier was Howard Brennan. He sat on a retaining wall
> >> directly in front of the dep. Unlike Enius there is photo evidence
> >> placing
> >> him there. The other piece of information I forgot to say was that
> >> Brennan
> >> was shown a photo of the building (Dillard, I think) Brennan claimed to
> >> have seen the 5th floor ear witnesses in the window. But when he was told
> >> to circle the window in the photo, he circled the wrong window.
> >
> > So? It would be a common mistake to not recall later precisely what
> > window it was. But wasn't the window he circled at least close? Wasn't
> > the window he circled on an upper floor? And wasn't the window he
> > circled much closer to the east side of the building than the west side?
>
> Yeah,yeah, yeah. Just another simple mistake?

You did know before today that all humans, not almost all, but all, make
mistakes, correct? You've made plenty here. And I'm not saying I
haven't as well. And you're ignoring what I said. He still circled a
window that was very close to the correct window, didn't he?

> >> Victoria Adams was on the fourth floor with Mrs Dorman as she film the
> >> assassination. They were standing in the third set of windows west of the
> >> building. Meaning somewhere in the middle of the building, but not far
> >> from the Norman, Williams and Jarman window. She said the shots came from
> >> further down rather than up toward the snipers nest. second shot, and
> >> then
> >> a third shot.
> >
> > Yes, and she said that all the shots, not some of them, but all of them,
> > came from below and to the right. Do you really think that all the
> > shots were fired from below the fourth floor and to the right of Adams?
>
> What does that prove? Brennan is allowed mistakes. But a distraught woman
> is held to the grinding stone? One reason. To support the lone gunman
> theory.

Huh? You're arguing with an argument I didn't make, which is called a
strawman. Where did I say that Victoria Adams isn't allowed mistakes?
You continue to misunderstand why I cite witnesses who said all the
shots came from one direction, whatever direction it was.

> > She's still quite consistent with more than 90% of the other witnesses,
> > who were of the impression that whatever direction the shots had come
> > from, they had all come from the same direction. James Jarman on the
> > fifth floor said that he had initially thought that all the shots came
> > from below him and to the left, the opposite direction claimed by Adams.
>
> Yea. Exactly. He was on the floor directly positioned below the sniper's
> window and he thought the shots came from below. That's why all three ran
> to the west side of the building. At a time when the shots were supposed
> to be ringing in their ears?

Have you ever read their testimonies where they explain why they ran to
the west side of the building? It was *not* because they thought the
shots came from the west of the building. It was because they saw
people running in that direction. Remember how you and I have discussed
that before, how a fair number of people ran in that direction? The
three men were wondering why those people were running that way when to
these three men the sounds of the shots didn't seem to have come from
the west. Jarman thought the shots had come from the east. Norman and
Williams thought they had come from the floor above them.

> > Danny Arce said all the shots came from the railroad tracks to the west
> > of the Depository. Virgie Baker said she thought all the shots came
> > from the Triple Underpass. Welcome Barnett said he thought all the
> > shots came from the top of the Depository. Jane Berry, who was standing
> > just west of the Depository, said she thought all the shots had come
> > from a position further west. Earle Brown thought all the shots had
> > come from the Depository. Ochus Campbell thought all the shots had come
> > from near the railroad tracks. John Chism, who was standing on the
> > north side of Elm in front of the concrete pergola that is between the
> > TSBD and the picket fence on the knoll, said he thought all the shots
> > had come from behind him. His wife, Faye, standing beside him, also
> > said that all the shots had come from behind them. Avery Davis said he
> > thought all the shots came from the direction of the viaduct which
> > crosses Elm Street west from where he was standing.
> >
> > Have you not yet noticed this obvious pattern when reading through all
> > these witness statements? No matter what direction they named for the
> > sounds of gunfire, almost all of them either said that all of the sounds
> > came from that direction, or else named no other direction in their
> > entire statements.
>
> Not all.

I never said all, I said almost all.

> Phil Willis standing across from the sniper's window said the
> last shot came from the knoll.

In later years he did indeed say that only the last shot came from the
knoll. So that's one.

> The Bill Newman said the last shot was
> fired from behind him.

Bill Newman *never* said that *only* the last shot came from behind him.
He never said that the previous shots came from a different direction
from the last shot. Never.

So you have still named only one witness who said that the shots came
from multiple directions. I've already named several who each said the
shots came from one direction. Not the same direction as other
witnesses said, that's not what I mean. But Victoria Adams said *all*
the shots came from below and to the west. James Jarman said *all* the
shots came from below and to the east. Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray
Williams said *all* the shots came from above them.

You have proven my point. You named one witness who said the shots came
from two different directions. I have already named more than ten who
did *not* say the shots came from multiple directions.

Just like I've been saying here for years: less than 10% of the
witnesses ever said the shots came from multiple directions.

> > What does this suggest to you? Surely you do not believe that three
> > shots were fired from below and to the east of the Depository and that
> > three more shots were fired from below and to the west of the Depository
> > and three more shots were fired from the Depository itself? And yet
> > each witness heard only three of the shots from one of those directions
> > and didn't hear any of the other six shots from the other two directions?
> >
> > What is the most obvious and plausible explanation for what all these
> > witnesses said?

I see you didn't answer that.

> >> It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it seemed
> >> as
> >> if it came from the right below rather than from the left above.
> >
> > Exactly. So she didn't seem to think that anyone was firing from any
> > floor above her. And there were plenty of witnesses who differed with
> > her on that. But where did they not differ? On this:
> >
> > No matter what direction each individual witness named for the sounds of
> > gunfire, more than nine out of every ten who named that same direction
> > named only that direction.
> >
> > You will find a mere handful of witnesses who individually stated that
> > they thought shots came from multiple directions, such as a single
> > witness saying that at least one shot had come from the east and at
> > least one shot had come from the west. Very few said anything even
> > remotely like that. You'll also find very few witnesses who said that
> > any shot sounded any louder or closer than any of the other shots. More
> > than 90% of the witnesses seemed to think that whatever direction the
> > shots had come from, they had all come from the same distance from
> > wherever each witness was standing.
> >
> > Again, what is the most obvious and plausible explanation for this?

You didn't answer that either.

> >> Possibly
> >> be cause of the report. And after the third shot, following that, the
> >> third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and
> >> encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way
> >> out to the Houston Street dock. As she said she and the other women ran
> >> down the stairs immediately after the shots. They did not see hear Oswald
> >> in the stairwell.
> >
> > Yes, and have you noticed something else? That stairway emerged onto
> > the first floor right beside the same elevator that Baker and Truly ran
> > to after the shooting, where Truly called up twice for the elevator to
> > be sent down, neither time was it sent down, and finally Truly gave up
> > on the elevator and led Baker up the stairs, the same stairs that Adams
> > and Styles had just come down. Did you notice that Adams said she never
> > heard Truly shouting for the elevator? Did you notice that Adams did
> > not meet Baker and Truly coming up the stairs? Did you notice that she
> > said she did not see them standing by the elevator as she came out onto
> > the first floor, nor did she see them anywhere else on the first floor
> > at that time?
>
> I think this is because Baker was mistaken about how long it took him.

I think so too.

> Shelley and Lovelady was standing in the steps when Adams and Styles came
> out of the building. They ran down Elm. Then Shelly and Lovelady walked
> down the Elm Street extention to the end of the building at the railroad
> tracks and parking lot entrance and looked around. Saw nothing but the
> crowd moving up the knoll. They turned around and started back toward the
> front of the building when they saw Truely and Baker.

No, Lovelady and Shelley said they saw Baker and Truly go in the
building before they went down to the railroad tracks.

> So it had to be MORE
> than 90 seconds before they even entered the building.

Well, I'd say at least a minute after the last shot before they entered
the building. 90 seconds after the last shot was fired is the so-called
"official" time for them reaching the lunchroom and seeing Oswald, not
the amount of time for them to enter the building.

> More like five
> minutes.

Oh no, not nearly that long.

> Then they dougled around beore they went up the stairs. So by the
> time they met Oswald on the 2nd floor could have been as much as ten
> minutes. Not 90 seconds.

No, not nearly that long. But meeting Oswald two to three minutes after
the last shot was fired? Entirely possible.

> > So if Adams was correct on her timing, a full minute after the last shot
> > was fired Baker and Truly had still gotten nowhere near the elevator
> > yet, meaning that they took longer to get up to the second floor and see
> > Oswald in the lunchroom than has often been claimed. This gives Oswald
> > even more time to get down to the lunchroom from the sixth floor, not
> > less. And did it ever occur to you that the only reason Adams did not
> > see Oswald coming down the stairs is that he was too far behind her for
> > her to see or hear him? If Baker and Truly are still not at the
> > elevator yet when Adams comes out on the first floor right beside the
> > elevator, then Oswald can be more than one flight of stairs behind
> > Adams, or could just be starting down the stairway on the sixth floor,
> > and still quite easily make it to the lunchroom before Baker and Truly.
> >
> > And also did you notice that while she said she didn't see Oswald on the
> > stairs, she also didn't see any other man on the stairs either? Yet
> > we've got multiple witness statements of a man holding a rifle on one of
> > the upper floors, including some of them saying they saw and heard the
> > rifle being fired. Fascinating that so many people make so much about
> > Adams not seeing Oswald coming down the stairs but never mention that
> > she didn't see any other man coming down the stairs either, and whether
> > the shooter was Oswald or not, he had to get down to the first floor and
> > out of the building somehow, eh?
>
> What about Garner? She went down the stairs too.

Lol, no she didn't, if by that you mean she went down the stairs right
after the shots were fired. She said she stayed on the fourth floor and
watched Adams and Styles leave.

> But stopped on the 2nd
> floorand was in the office beside the stairs.

I do not know of Dorothy Garner ever saying that, at least not for the
first several minutes after the shooting. And I've been reading her
statements recently, just within the past several days, both the ones
she made in the first twelve months after the assassination, and the
ones she made decades later to Barry Ernest, author of "The Girl on the
Stairs," so her statements are very fresh in my memory now.

> She could see the stairwell
> and elevators, but she never seen Oswald come out of the stairs either.

No, she said she could see the stairwell on the fourth floor.

> Didn't hear him or see him either.

As he didn't come out on the fourth floor, and wasn't necessarily
stomping down the stairs as loudly as possible, that is no surprise.

> >> The other ear witnesses testimony could not be found.
> >
> > What other ear witness testimony could not be found? Surely you are not
> > talking about Sandra Styles, who ran down the stairs with Victoria
> > Adams? If you are, perhaps you can explain what this is then:
> >
> > "I recall that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 while watching the
> > motorcade at sometime between 12:15 PM and 12:30 PM, possibly about
> > 12:20 I heard shots but thought at the time that they were fireworks. I
> > was unaware of the place the shots came from. I saw people running and
> > others lie down on the ground and realized something was happening but
> > did not know exactly what was happening. VICTORIA ADAMS and I left the
> > office at this time, went down the back stairs and left the building at
> > the back door. We then went around to the side of the building where we
> > saw a policeman talking to someone whom I did not recognize. I was told
> > by a policeman to go around to the front of the building and out of that
> > area. I then re-entered the building through the front door, took the
> > elevator to the fourth floor and returned to my office. I did not see
> > any strangers or LEE HARVEY OSWALD between the time I left my office and
> > returned to it inside the building, however I saw many persons milling
> > around outside the building and did not recognize any particular person."
> >
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0
>
> This link is bogus. It doesn't go anywhere. Maybe you made it up. Why did
> you do that?
>
> > 353b.htm

What on earth are you doing to try to get to that link? You have to
copy and paste the entire thing into your browser window. If the link
appears on two lines in your newsreader window you have to make sure you
copy both lines, make sure it all appears on one line in your browser
address window, and make sure no characters are missing. These History
Matters links have been posted many times by many people in this
newsgroup, and they nearly always work. I just copied and pasted it
again and it took me right to that page. Ask other posters here if that
link works. If more than three of them answer the majority of them will
say yes. Here's the link again:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0
353b.htm

It works just fine. I'm on that page right now.

EVERYBODY ELSE, DOES THIS LINK WORK?

If you say my links don't work one more time I'm going to start a new
thread with this Subject line:

"Research" says these links are bogus?

Then we may see how many others here agree with you and how many agree
with me.

In fact, I'm starting to get offended here, Research. You must have an
extremely low opinion of me indeed if you think I would *intentionally*
post links that don't work. I have never done that once in all my years
in this newsgroup.

And if they're bogus, Research, how is it that I'm able to quote from
those documents verbatim? No other poster has replied saying those
documents don't say what I've quoted them as saying.

> > See how that's her in her own words, not what someone else by hearsay
> > claimed she said? And that is most definitely in Warren Commission
> > Volume 22 as originally printed in September, 1964, and it is also quite
> > obviously on History Matters as the link above shows. Notice how she,
> > just like Adams, made no mention of Oswald or any other man being on the
> > stairs as she and Adams were coming down? Notice how she, just like
> > Adams, said nothing about meeting Baker and Truly coming up the stairs
> > while the two women were going down? Notice how she, just like Adams,
> > made no mention of Baker and Truly being anywhere on the first floor
> > when the two women got there?
>
> Maybe cause He wasn't on the sixth floor.

You've already admitted that it probably took Baker and Truly longer
than they said to reach the second floor. Maybe the reason Styles
didn't see Oswald is because he was more than a floor *behind* her and
Adams when they were coming down?

And they didn't say anything about any *other* man who might have the
shooter coming down either.

> Makes as much cents as any of your
> other ramblings.

"Cents"? What about dollars? And you're a fine one to talk about
someone else rambling, when you've gotten all sorts of things wrong in
this one article of yours alone. You've done plenty of rambling in your
articles too. Yet again, you accuse someone else of something of which
you are at least equally guilty.

[John Reagor King]

In article <5058...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Ok, that does it. It is not my fault that you don't know how to copy
and paste a link properly into your browser window. As soon as I post
this I'm starting a new thread:

"Research" says these links are bogus?

Let's see how many others here agree with you that these links don't
work.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, and you have no basis for making any claims at all.

[Saintly Oswald]

Greer fired at least two shots. The first one went into John Connally's
back. No, really. This is the shot that sends Bob Harris into a tizzy,
where everybody in the car reacts. They all react so strongly because the
shot came from the front seat. Connally was turned most of the way around
and was blocking Greer's shot of JFK. At frame 291 Greer shoots Connally
in the back. The limo has been framed so low to hide the bullet's exit;
that's where it really popped Connally's lapel. Frame 224 is faked. Can I
say this here? Bob wouldn't let me say anything like this on his forum.
You can even see Greer's hand go up to his face in this COINCIDENTALLY
(LOL) blurry frame. To judge by the Nix film, he didn't fire the explosive
head shot, but who knows. I wouldn't trust any of these films too far.

[Anthony Marsh]

What are you calling his firs occasion? You mean his affidavit?

This one?

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif

That was not written. It was typed. By a secretary working in the
Sheriff's Department. Euins would not be allowed to type up his own
affidavit.

> occasion his words were being taken down by a stenographer as he was
> speaking.
>

On the first occasion his words were being taken down by a stenographer

as he was speaking.

> Underwood is different. He was testifying more than four months later
> about what he *remembered* Euins saying. He was relying on memory that
> was more than four months old. He wasn't recording Euins's words at the
> same time Euins was speaking. He was not quoting a document written by
> Euins.
>

So what?

> See the difference?
>

Loftus sees a difference.

>> You are
>> dening he heard what Enius told him.
>
> I am not denying he heard what Euins told him on 11-22-63. I am saying
> that by the time Underwood testified on 4-1-64 he was relying on
> *memory* to recall what Euins said.
>

No. And neither was Biffle.

>> He was a trained journalist, listening
>> skills and all. Not some dumb snot-nosed kid.
>
> Even trained journalists are human and can make mistakes. Did you miss
> the part where he didn't even remember Euins's name correctly?
>

Maybe he didn't HEAR it clearly.

You tend to babble incoherently.

He's a newbie. At least he knows how to click on a link, unlike you.

[Saintly Oswald]

I made this video to illustrate what I'm saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1uoQbluW1w&feature=plcp

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-4159A1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

What is involved in following a link? A mouse click? I even pasted it to
Google Chrome and it went no where. I enen added 6a.htm which is not in
the hyperlink and should be. But still went nowhere man.

>
> "Research" says these links are bogus?
>
> Let's see how many others here agree with you that these links don't
> work.
>

But you avoided my question about Enius' testimony. If Enius saw the
shooter as he claimed why did he describe the entire rifle to the point it
was a rifle, but never mentioned the scope? And was never asked whether
there was one? Sounds like one of those tricks the WC used darning the
testimonies when they avoided asking where the witnesses thought the shots
came from. Jackie was the closest, but wasn't asked.

I just don't believe Enius. You can if you want to.

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-06DDE3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Being a journalist wouldn't he have made notes?

Hey we do agree on that. Atleast?
But WHY aren't they in the Hughes film? IF they were watching the parade
like they claimed?

I did what you said and it worked that time. But really didn't yesterday.
But thanks for the lead. Cause it proves he changed his statement by the
time he went to the WC.

Here he does mention the boxes. But he also said he thought it was an
automatic cause it was fired so rapidly. He never said that at the WC. And
he never explained how he could see the rifle sticking out the window
three feet cause the boxes were in the window. And he never described the
scope. He described trigger housing and the bolt on the opposite side of
the rifle at the hearings. But never the scope? Just doesn't sound
plausible to be. How many automatics have you seen with a bolt action? I'm
not a rifle expert, but I don't think they go together. And at the hearing
he did not describe the rifle as an automatic.

>
> Strange then that I just copied and pasted it into my browser address
> window seconds ago and it worked just fine.
>
>> Maybe you wrote ci when you meant CIA. your home
>> office?
>
> Har. "ci.dallas" stands for "City of Dallas."

So this is a statement made to DPD?

I did that way this time too. And it did work. Usually all you have to do
is double click on a hyperlink and IE will take you there. But pasting
works fine. Thanks for this link too. I think I'll need that. I knew if I
hung around long enough you might becaome a vaulable asset. :>}

>

> Euins's affidavit.

> I never said all three of them were in it.
>
>> > Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
>> > himself actually said in his own words?

Well Enius' testimony looks false to me?

>> >
>> > And see how on the very day of the assassination Euins in his own
>> > words,
>> > not quoted by someone else, was saying that he saw the man fire twice?
>> > Obviously he did not still think it was a pipe by then.

I only said he told the WC he thought it was a pipe. I didn't elaborate on
the whole testimony.

Sorry. I saw in some article that they called Brennan a "star witness" as
so I thought that must be a phrase contributed to him because he WAS the
witness to describe the shooter. I don't think he was the only one to do
so . Was he?

No but if he ran down the stairs he would have had to make some noise. I
think he would've been in pretty big hurry. But nobody heard him. I'm not
saying it wasn't Oswald.

And wasn't there some employee reports that there were suspect running
down the fire excape? Too, meaning that also?

thanks

Totally agree with this too?

[John Reagor King]

In article <505a42cc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Really? How about this claim:

President Kennedy was assassinated.

Since, according to you, I have no basis for making any claims at all,
that must also mean that, according to you, any claim I make, no matter
what it is, is false.

So why are we even here then, if President Kennedy wasn't assassinated?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:53:27 PM UTC-4, Saintly Oswald wrote:

You are joking I hope.

[John Reagor King]

In article <505a9458$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

And that link works, doesn't it, Anthony? Research made a false claim
when saying that link doesn't work, didn't he, Anthony?

> That was not written. It was typed. By a secretary working in the
> Sheriff's Department. Euins would not be allowed to type up his own
> affidavit.

These affidavits were handwritten first, then given to the secretary to
type. I shall now give several examples:

Here is the first page of Johnny Brewer's handwritten affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0080-001.gif

And that link definitely works, Research. Doesn't it, Anthony?

And here are the second, third, and fourth pages:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0080-002.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0080-003.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0080-004.gif

And those links all work too, don't they Anthony? Don't they, everyone?

His handwritten affidavit was then submitted to the secretary, who typed
it. Here's the typed version of the same affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/28/2824-001.gif

Here is T.F. Bowley's handwritten affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0082-001.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0082-002.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0082-003.gif

And here's the typed version of the same affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0476-001.gif

Ooo, and this is my favorite of all, since it is also the origin of the
Mauser Myth: the handwritten version of Seymour Weitzman's affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0123-001.gif

And here's the typed version of the same affidavit:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif

And as I would think you, of all people, Anthony, already knew long
before today, erudite researcher that you are, there are many more
examples on this website of the same affidavits first being handwritten,
then typed.

So what if Euins's original handwritten version does not appear on the
website? Does that automatically mean that they suddenly followed a
different practice for him than for all these other witnesses? Or does
it simply mean that for whatever reason they didn't put his original
handwritten version on the website?

> > occasion his words were being taken down by a stenographer as he was
> > speaking.
> >
>
> On the first occasion his words were being taken down by a stenographer
> as he was speaking.

For the affidavit? And your evidence for that is, what exactly? They
didn't do that for any of the other affidavits. I think Euins had
learned how to read and write by the time he was fifteen.

> > See the difference?
>
> Loftus sees a difference.

Is Loftus here in this newsgroup today?

> >> You are
> >> dening he heard what Enius told him.
> >
> > I am not denying he heard what Euins told him on 11-22-63. I am saying
> > that by the time Underwood testified on 4-1-64 he was relying on
> > *memory* to recall what Euins said.
>
> No.

No? 11-22-63 is the same day as 4-1-64? What calendar are you using?

> >> He was a trained journalist, listening
> >> skills and all. Not some dumb snot-nosed kid.
> >
> > Even trained journalists are human and can make mistakes. Did you miss
> > the part where he didn't even remember Euins's name correctly?
>
> Maybe he didn't HEAR it clearly.

Exactly. You and I are in agreement again. This remarkable event has
happened several times within the past few days. The world must be
coming to an end tomorrow. The Mayan calendar must be off by three
months: the world will really end on September 21, 2012, not December
21, 2012. Cats and dogs might already be living together.

Was that it? Were you using the Mayan calendar, or some variant of it,
when you claimed above that Underwood when testifying in April of 1964
wasn't relying on memory to recall what Euins said in November of 1963?

> >>> What does this suggest to you? Surely you do not believe that three
> >>> shots were fired from below and to the east of the Depository and that
> >>> three more shots were fired from below and to the west of the Depository
> >>> and three more shots were fired from the Depository itself? And yet
> >>> each witness heard only three of the shots from one of those directions
> >>> and didn't hear any of the other six shots from the other two directions?
> >>>
> >>> What is the most obvious and plausible explanation for what all these
> >>> witnesses said?
> >
> > I see you didn't answer that.
>
> You tend to babble incoherently.

Can you say "pot/kettle," Anthony?

When have I ever demonstrated that I don't know how to click on a link,
Anthony? Oh that's right, in your imagination only. But at least both
you and he know how to make up things about other posters out of thin
air. Although he probably still has a lot to learn from you about that,
as you are the Master of that sort of thing.

[Anthony Marsh]

Euins changed his statement by the time he gave it to the cops that
afternoon.

> Here he does mention the boxes. But he also said he thought it was an
> automatic cause it was fired so rapidly. He never said that at the WC. And
> he never explained how he could see the rifle sticking out the window
> three feet cause the boxes were in the window. And he never described the

The boxes were not IN the window. And the barrel of the rifle is so thin
that it could be held over the boxes and be seen in the window.

> scope. He described trigger housing and the bolt on the opposite side of
> the rifle at the hearings. But never the scope? Just doesn't sound

When did Euins talk about the bolt? That's wacky.

> plausible to be. How many automatics have you seen with a bolt action? I'm

He said it SOUNDED like an automatic.

> not a rifle expert, but I don't think they go together. And at the hearing
> he did not describe the rifle as an automatic.
>

So what? Sloppy questioning.

>>
>> Strange then that I just copied and pasted it into my browser address
>> window seconds ago and it worked just fine.
>>
>>> Maybe you wrote ci when you meant CIA. your home
>>> office?
>>
>> Har. "ci.dallas" stands for "City of Dallas."
>
> So this is a statement made to DPD?
>

Sheriff's Department.

Well Newbie, line length in Usenet messages usually breaks up the URL so
that clicking won't work.

>>
>
>> Euins's affidavit.
>> I never said all three of them were in it.
>>
>>>> Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
>>>> himself actually said in his own words?
> Well Enius' testimony looks false to me?

Hearsay is what Euins actually said himself. Testimony is what he was
coached to say.

He is the one they relied on to prove that it was Oswald shooting.

Why does he have to run? And why does he have to run up from the first
floor to the fifth floor and then run down again to the second floor?

> think he would've been in pretty big hurry. But nobody heard him. I'm not
> saying it wasn't Oswald.
>

Maybe some people in the TSBD didn't even hear the shots.

> And wasn't there some employee reports that there were suspect running
> down the fire excape? Too, meaning that also?
>

Not really. That was just one police theory.

[Saintly Oswald]

No joke. Greer got 'em both. Though, Connally's wrist got hit in Zapruder
frame 322 by the shot from the bridge. I don't know what hit his thigh.

[Anthony Marsh]

He may be only a troll, but there are indeed a few people who believe it.

[Saintly Oswald]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:04 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> He may be only a troll, but there are indeed a few people who believe it.

"only a troll?" People seem to think troll means anybody online they just
don't like. You've got true nuts on here talking about Oswald innocence
projects and blunt brain saps who are looking for snipers in windows at
100x zoom, and you think I'm a troll? Damn, dude, the Butler done it! This
was an inside job. Look at the damn pictures. Greer shot Kennedy. Others
did, too, but they aren't so easy to name. No intelligent people can
examine these photos without concluding that Greer shot Kennedy and
efforts were made to hide that fact. Troll indeed!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/21/2012 6:17 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:04 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> He may be only a troll, but there are indeed a few people who believe it.
>
> "only a troll?" People seem to think troll means anybody online they just
> don't like. You've got true nuts on here talking about Oswald innocence
> projects and blunt brain saps who are looking for snipers in windows at
> 100x zoom, and you think I'm a troll? Damn, dude, the Butler done it! This

I didn't bring up those topics. You have no right to tell me I can't
comment on them.

[Research]

"John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:caeruleo-7620FF...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

The double click on it and see where it goes. So you can more effectively
defend your argument. Cause you don't write the links correctly. Yeah yeah
copy&paste. But the reader wouldn't have this inconvenience if you could
post links right. Excuse me. I'm a morone, I'm soooo stupid I don't know
how to double click a link? I know you never considered you could have
BEEN WRONG. Next time put the link in right.

[John Reagor King]

In article <4cb8c46c-da4e-4487...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No joke. Greer got 'em both. Though, Connally's wrist got hit in Zapruder
> frame 322 by the shot from the bridge. I don't know what hit his thigh.

A pigeon dropping, perhaps?

[John Reagor King]

In article <63b73f86-0e6a-4071...@googlegroups.com>,

Saintly Oswald <fatol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I made this video to illustrate what I'm saying.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1uoQbluW1w&feature=plcp

Gawd, that's one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I startled my
dog, again, by laughing so loud. Thank you so much for posting that
link. :D

[John Reagor King]

In article <505b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:caeruleo-06DDE3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > In article <5058...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "John Reagor King" <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:caeruleo-1A21F5...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> > In article <5056...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >> > "Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> You are
> >> dening he heard what Enius told him.
> >
> > I am not denying he heard what Euins told him on 11-22-63. I am saying
> > that by the time Underwood testified on 4-1-64 he was relying on
> > *memory* to recall what Euins said.
>
> Being a journalist wouldn't he have made notes?

Did Underwood say during his WC testimony that he was referring to his
notes? No, he did not.

> >> They had already went to the west of the building and returned.
> >
> > Lol, nope.
>
> Hey we do agree on that. Atleast?
> But WHY aren't they in the Hughes film? IF they were watching the parade
> like they claimed?

The Hughes film? The one taken by Robert Hughes? This film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEPyzR1c_mc

How on earth would you even be able to tell which ones they are?

You also said the other day that you couldn't make out Euins in another
film, and I responded that there's no way you could tell for sure
whether he's in that film or not.

> >> > We've got photographs of at least two of them looking out of the fifth
> >> > floor windows immediately after the shots were fired. If Euins told
> >> > Underwood that the shooter was also colored, it is interesting that in
> >> > Euins's affidavit on the same day of the assassination he said the
> >> > shooter was a white man:
> >> >
> >> > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif
> >>
> >> This link is bogus.
>
> I did what you said and it worked that time. But really didn't yesterday.

Well, I'm sorry to be so harsh with you, but you should have thought to
yourself that maybe it was you who was doing something wrong before
jumping to the conclusion that I was posting bogus links on purpose.

> But thanks for the lead. Cause it proves he changed his statement by the
> time he went to the WC.
>
> Here he does mention the boxes.

Are you saying he didn't mention the boxes to the WC as well? If so,
may I ask what this is then?

**********

Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a
reflection, shaded.

..........

Mr. SPECTER. All right.
When you looked up and saw this man, Amos, did he have on a hat?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice any boxes behind him at that time, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; there were some boxes, you know, all the side of
the window. Like this window--there were some boxes in these windows up
here.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw some boxes in these windows?
Mr. EUINS. In these windows, and these windows, and there was boxes in
half of this one.
Mr. SPECTER. All right. Now, mark the windows where you saw those boxes,
Amos. Start off with--mark the window "Y" where you saw boxes.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER. You made a figure 9, as I read it, on the two places you
saw in the windows.
EUINS. Yes, sir: in this half.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, were there boxes in the window marked "X"?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. There were about two or three of them right along--
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the middle dividing line there?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

**********

> But he also said he thought it was an
> automatic cause it was fired so rapidly.

Please read the affidavit again. He didn't say it was because it was
fired so rapidly. Instead he said this:

"I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle
the way he was shooting."

Now, one might *interpret* "the way he was shooting" as meaning that the
gun fired rapidly, but Euins did not specifically say that the gun fired

rapidly.

> He never said that at the WC. And
> he never explained how he could see the rifle sticking out the window
> three feet cause the boxes were in the window.

I have corrected you about this before. Euins NEVER told the WC that
the rifle stuck out three feet. Arlen Specter asked him how far the
rifle stuck out of the window. Euins held up his hands a certain
distance apart. Specter then ASKED Euins IF that was about three feet,
and Euins did NOT answer yes to that. Here's what was actually said:

**********

Mr. SPECTER. How far was it sticking out of the window would you say
then, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I would say it was about something like that.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 3 feet?
Mr. EUINS. You know--the trigger housing and stock and receiver group
out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. I can't understand you, Amos.
Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the
trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house?
Mr. EUINS. Yes.

**********

When Specter asked if it was about 3 feet, Euins did not say yes it was.
Instead, as he plainly said above, he simply said "enough to get the

stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the
window."

Euins did not utter the words "three feet" anywhere in his testimony.
The only person who uttered those words was Arlen Specter.

> And he never described the
> scope.

And I've responded to you about that before too. Euins was looking at
part of a rifle more than 50 feet above him. That would mean that the
underside of the rifle would be more visible to him than the top side.
The scope was on the top of the rifle, not the underside. Why do you
seem to expect Euins to have the eyesight of a hawk, rather than of an
average human? Naturally, practically any witness looking at part of a
rifle so high above them might miss a few details. I doubt I would have
gotten every detail right either, especially if I saw the rifle for a
total less than 10 seconds. You seem once again to be attaching way too
much importance to something that is utterly trivial. Or are you
claiming that beyond all possible doubt you would have noticed the scope
if you had been in his circumstances, and if so, how could you possibly
know such a thing?

Apparently to you, unless a witness description is absolutely perfect in
every detail, they must be lying.

Why can't it just be that Euins missed the scope? What's so outlandish
about that?

> He described trigger housing and the bolt on the opposite side of
> the rifle at the hearings.

Yes, on the *underside* of the rifle, the part of the rifle he'd be able
to see more clearly from far below.

> But never the scope?

Unless the shooter turned the rifle upside-down at some point, the scope
would be on top of the rifle, not on the underside, and much less easy
to see from far below.

> Just doesn't sound
> plausible to be.

So unless a witness description is absolutely perfect, that witness is
not plausible to you? Well then, you'd have to dismiss every witness in
this entire case.

> How many automatics have you seen with a bolt action? I'm
> not a rifle expert, but I don't think they go together.

Please quote verbatim the imaginary statement Euins never made, in his
affidavit or his WC testimony, saying that he saw the bolt. He never
described the rifle as being both a bolt action and an automatic.

> And at the hearing
> he did not describe the rifle as an automatic.

So? In his affidavit he just said it sounded like an automatic. Just
like to the WC he said it looked like a pipe, at first. Once again,
unless a witness description is absolutely perfect, you seem to think
the statement is not honest. And did he specifically say to the WC that
it *wasn't* an automatic? No he did not. Unless witness statements
made several months apart agree with each other in every detail to
absolute perfection, you seem to think even the slightest difference
automatically means the witness is lying, or is lacking in credibility.

You better go ahead and dismiss all the witnesses then.

> >> Maybe you wrote ci when you meant CIA. your home
> >> office?
> >
> > Har. "ci.dallas" stands for "City of Dallas."
>
> So this is a statement made to DPD?

If you would look at the affidavit again please, you should see that at
the top it says, in large capital letters,

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

On my newsreader clicking or double-clicking on a link never works.
Always have to copy and paste. I'm not sure how it works on Outlook, as
I would rather walk on my own lips than use that program to read
newsgroup articles, lol.

> But pasting
> works fine. Thanks for this link too. I think I'll need that. I knew if I
> hung around long enough you might becaome a vaulable asset. :>}

Would that be your version of an apology for falsely accusing me of
posting bogus links on purpose? In at least one of your previous
articles you did indeed suggest that I was doing that on purpose.

> >> > Why are you going by Underwood's hearsay testimony than by what Euins
> >> > himself actually said in his own words?
>
> Well Enius' testimony looks false to me?

And you have yet to give an even remotely plausible reason why.

> >> > And see how on the very day of the assassination Euins in his own
> >> > words,
> >> > not quoted by someone else, was saying that he saw the man fire twice?
> >> > Obviously he did not still think it was a pipe by then.
>
> I only said he told the WC he thought it was a pipe. I didn't elaborate on
> the whole testimony.

You didn't need to elaborate on the whole testimony, but only by reading
the whole testimony can you get the *context* of what the person was
saying. In *context* Euins quite obviously meant he thought it was a
pipe at first *only*, not later on when he saw more of the rifle such as
the trigger and also saw it fire. In several articles you insisted that
he *only* described it as a pipe, and that is false.

> >> I don't
> >> believe him.
> >
> > Oh I see. So when looking up at a person who is more than fifty feet
> > above you kneeling by a window, you're going to be able to see more than
> > half of that person? And you say you've seen the Dillard photo. You
> > can see more than half of the bodies of Norman and Williams? I can only
> > see them from about mid-chest up. And they're *less* than fifty feet
> > above the ground. So you say you don't believe Euins saw less than half
> > of a man who was on a *higher* floor? ROFL.

I see you ignored that. When I make an obvious mistake, and I mean an
obvious one, I usually admit it and apologize for it, when it is pointed
out to me. I freely admitted to Curt Jester yesterday that I had made a
huge blunder in another thread. Strange that you cannot admit your
obvious mistake about how much of a person would really be seen through
these windows from far below.

> >> >I doubt most witnesses would be able
> >> > to later identify that man, even if the man was brought right up to
> >> > them
> >> > later.
> >>
> >> Preempted? Really? Maybe that is beacuse your star witness Brennan saw
> >> Oswald on TV, twice before and still could not pick him out of the
> >> line-up.
> >
> > When did I ever say that Brennan was my star witness? In fact, when did
> > I ever say that I thought Brennan was especially credible? You're
> > confusing me with somebody else, apparently.
>
> Sorry.

Well, at least you apologize for that.

> I saw in some article that they called Brennan a "star witness" as
> so I thought that must be a phrase contributed to him because he WAS the
> witness to describe the shooter. I don't think he was the only one to do
> so . Was he?

I think some people call him that merely because it seems to have been
his description of the shooter that went out over DPD radio at 12:45,
especially since his description in his same-day affidavit is virtually
identical to the description in the broadcast. But his description
wasn't perfect either, as he described the shooter to have been in his
early thirties. He also waffled quite a bit on identifying Oswald
later, so that is why I don't find him to be entirely credible.

> >> >> Another star WC testifier was Howard Brennan. He sat on a retaining
> >> >> wall
> >> >> directly in front of the dep. Unlike Enius there is photo evidence
> >> >> placing
> >> >> him there. The other piece of information I forgot to say was that
> >> >> Brennan
> >> >> was shown a photo of the building (Dillard, I think) Brennan claimed
> >> >> to
> >> >> have seen the 5th floor ear witnesses in the window. But when he was
> >> >> told
> >> >> to circle the window in the photo, he circled the wrong window.
> >> >
> >> > So? It would be a common mistake to not recall later precisely what
> >> > window it was. But wasn't the window he circled at least close?
> >> > Wasn't
> >> > the window he circled on an upper floor? And wasn't the window he
> >> > circled much closer to the east side of the building than the west
> >> > side?
> >>
> >> Yeah,yeah, yeah. Just another simple mistake?
> >
> > You did know before today that all humans, not almost all, but all, make
> > mistakes, correct? You've made plenty here. And I'm not saying I
> > haven't as well. And you're ignoring what I said. He still circled a
> > window that was very close to the correct window, didn't he?

Why didn't you answer "yes" to that, Research?

> >> >> Victoria Adams was on the fourth floor with Mrs Dorman as she film the
> >> >> assassination. They were standing in the third set of windows west of
> >> >> the
> >> >> building. Meaning somewhere in the middle of the building, but not far
> >> >> from the Norman, Williams and Jarman window. She said the shots came
> >> >> from
> >> >> further down rather than up toward the snipers nest. second shot, and
> >> >> then
> >> >> a third shot.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, and she said that all the shots, not some of them, but all of
> >> > them,
> >> > came from below and to the right. Do you really think that all the
> >> > shots were fired from below the fourth floor and to the right of Adams?
> >>
> >> What does that prove? Brennan is allowed mistakes. But a distraught woman
> >> is held to the grinding stone? One reason. To support the lone gunman
> >> theory.
> >
> > Huh? You're arguing with an argument I didn't make, which is called a
> > strawman. Where did I say that Victoria Adams isn't allowed mistakes?
> > You continue to misunderstand why I cite witnesses who said all the
> > shots came from one direction, whatever direction it was.

And see there? You didn't answer this part either. You falsely
criticized me for holding a distraught woman to the grindstone because
she might have made a mistake, but that's exactly what you're doing with
Euins: because his descriptions aren't absolutely perfect, you don't
believe them.

This is yet another example of you falsely accusing me of something that
you are *truly* guilty of. And the reason why you're doing it is
obvious: to support a conspiracy. You falsely accused me above of doing
it to support the lone gunman theory.

> >> > She's still quite consistent with more than 90% of the other witnesses,
> >> > who were of the impression that whatever direction the shots had come
> >> > from, they had all come from the same direction. James Jarman on the
> >> > fifth floor said that he had initially thought that all the shots came
> >> > from below him and to the left, the opposite direction claimed by
> >> > Adams.
> >>
> >> Yea. Exactly. He was on the floor directly positioned below the sniper's
> >> window and he thought the shots came from below. That's why all three ran
> >> to the west side of the building. At a time when the shots were supposed
> >> to be ringing in their ears?
> >
> > Have you ever read their testimonies where they explain why they ran to
> > the west side of the building? It was *not* because they thought the
> > shots came from the west of the building. It was because they saw
> > people running in that direction. Remember how you and I have discussed
> > that before, how a fair number of people ran in that direction? The
> > three men were wondering why those people were running that way when to
> > these three men the sounds of the shots didn't seem to have come from
> > the west. Jarman thought the shots had come from the east. Norman and
> > Williams thought they had come from the floor above them.

You didn't respond to that either. I pointed out yet another of your
obvious mistakes, and you can't be big enough to admit you made a
mistake.

> >> The Bill Newman said the last shot was
> >> fired from behind him.
> >
> > Bill Newman *never* said that *only* the last shot came from behind him.
> > He never said that the previous shots came from a different direction
> > from the last shot. Never.

You didn't respond to that either.

> > So you have still named only one witness who said that the shots came
> > from multiple directions. I've already named several who each said the
> > shots came from one direction. Not the same direction as other
> > witnesses said, that's not what I mean. But Victoria Adams said *all*
> > the shots came from below and to the west. James Jarman said *all* the
> > shots came from below and to the east. Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray
> > Williams said *all* the shots came from above them.
> >
> > You have proven my point. You named one witness who said the shots came
> > from two different directions. I have already named more than ten who
> > did *not* say the shots came from multiple directions.
> >
> > Just like I've been saying here for years: less than 10% of the
> > witnesses ever said the shots came from multiple directions.

Or that.

> >> > What does this suggest to you? Surely you do not believe that three
> >> > shots were fired from below and to the east of the Depository and that
> >> > three more shots were fired from below and to the west of the
> >> > Depository
> >> > and three more shots were fired from the Depository itself? And yet
> >> > each witness heard only three of the shots from one of those directions
> >> > and didn't hear any of the other six shots from the other two
> >> > directions?
> >> >
> >> > What is the most obvious and plausible explanation for what all these
> >> > witnesses said?
> >
> > I see you didn't answer that.

And I see you didn't answer it again this time either.

> >> >> It sounded like a firecracker or a cannon at a football game, it
> >> >> seemed
> >> >> as
> >> >> if it came from the right below rather than from the left above.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly. So she didn't seem to think that anyone was firing from any
> >> > floor above her. And there were plenty of witnesses who differed with
> >> > her on that. But where did they not differ? On this:
> >> >
> >> > No matter what direction each individual witness named for the sounds
> >> > of
> >> > gunfire, more than nine out of every ten who named that same direction
> >> > named only that direction.
> >> >
> >> > You will find a mere handful of witnesses who individually stated that
> >> > they thought shots came from multiple directions, such as a single
> >> > witness saying that at least one shot had come from the east and at
> >> > least one shot had come from the west. Very few said anything even
> >> > remotely like that. You'll also find very few witnesses who said that
> >> > any shot sounded any louder or closer than any of the other shots.
> >> > More
> >> > than 90% of the witnesses seemed to think that whatever direction the
> >> > shots had come from, they had all come from the same distance from
> >> > wherever each witness was standing.
> >> >
> >> > Again, what is the most obvious and plausible explanation for this?
> >
> > You didn't answer that either.

Or this time either.

> >> Shelley and Lovelady was standing in the steps when Adams and Styles came
> >> out of the building. They ran down Elm. Then Shelly and Lovelady walked
> >> down the Elm Street extention to the end of the building at the railroad
> >> tracks and parking lot entrance and looked around. Saw nothing but the
> >> crowd moving up the knoll. They turned around and started back toward the
> >> front of the building when they saw Truely and Baker.
> >
> > No, Lovelady and Shelley said they saw Baker and Truly go in the
> > building before they went down to the railroad tracks.

You didn't admit that obvious mistake either. You're on a roll.

> >> Didn't hear him or see him either.
> >
> > As he didn't come out on the fourth floor, and wasn't necessarily
> > stomping down the stairs as loudly as possible, that is no surprise.
>
> No but if he ran down the stairs he would have had to make some noise.

Maybe, but there's no possible way of knowing how much.

> I
> think he would've been in pretty big hurry. But nobody heard him. I'm not
> saying it wasn't Oswald.
>
> And wasn't there some employee reports that there were suspect running
> down the fire excape? Too, meaning that also?

No.

Do you? Finally. It took you long enough.

[John Reagor King]

In article <505b818b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Why does he have to run? And why does he have to run up from the first
> floor to the fifth floor and then run down again to the second floor?

Who ran up from the first floor to the fifth floor and back down again,
Anthony? You cannot possibly be talking about Oswald, since no TSBD
employee firmly placed him on the first floor any earlier than 12:15,
and none of them said he went to the fifth floor between 12:15 and after
the shooting. ;-)

[John Reagor King]

In article <505b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> But you avoided my question about Enius' testimony. If Enius saw the
> shooter as he claimed why did he describe the entire rifle to the point it
> was a rifle, but never mentioned the scope?

Oh

my

gawd.

You very badly need to learn how to follow a discussion properly. You
posted this present reply to me on Thursday, September 20. On
***MONDAY*** September 17 I DID INDEED ANSWER THAT QUESTION, and you
REPLIED to that same article ***TUESDAY***, the following day, and
***QUOTED*** my answer:

"Euins was more than 50 feet below the shooter. It would
be harder to see the scope on top of the rifle than it would be to see
the trigger on the bottom of the rifle."

I answered your question three days before you said I avoided it. You
replied to that same article the following day, proving beyond all
possible doubt that you saw the article. If you didn't see it, how
could you post a reply to it? It's not my fault that you didn't read
the whole article you were replying to.

I'm getting damned tired of you falsely accusing me of doing something I
didn't do, like posting bogus links, or falsely accusing me of not doing
that I did do, like claiming I didn't answer a question three days after
I already answered it, or falsely claiming that I am guilty of things
that you are more guilty of than I am.

Is it your desire that I never take anything you say seriously again?
You're sure working hard in that direction.

[Anthony Marsh]

We were talking about AFTER the shooting.

[John Reagor King]

In article <505e4d9f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/22/2012 7:43 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505b818b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Why does he have to run? And why does he have to run up from the first
> >> floor to the fifth floor and then run down again to the second floor?
> >
> > Who ran up from the first floor to the fifth floor and back down again,
> > Anthony? You cannot possibly be talking about Oswald, since no TSBD
> > employee firmly placed him on the first floor any earlier than 12:15,
> > and none of them said he went to the fifth floor between 12:15 and after
> > the shooting. ;-)
>
> We were talking about AFTER the shooting.

Oh yes, you are correct. This is one of the extremely rare occasions that
you've followed a discussion better than me. ;-)

Ok, so we still have the same problem though, don't we, Anthony? No TSBD
employee ever said that after the shooting Oswald ran up from the first
floor to the fifth floor and back down again. No TSBD employee ever
*firmly* put him on the first floor any later than 12:15. Even after the
shooting, none of them ever said they saw him on the *first* floor,
correct?

[John Reagor King]

In article <505e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

My gawd, you must be woefully inexperienced with how computers and the
Internet work. I did not put the links in "wrong." I put them in
exactly as they appear. There isn't any other way to put them into a
newsgroup article, Research.

So yet again, you blame me for your own ineptitude.

> Yeah yeah
> copy&paste. But the reader wouldn't have this inconvenience if you could
> post links right.

I did post them right. You don't know what you're talking about. Have
you looked at the thread, '"Research" says these links are bogus?' None
of the other people who have replied say I'm doing anything wrong. I've
been posting to newsgroups since 1998, dude, and I've almost never been
told by anyone that they can't get to a link I've posted, or that I'm
posting them "wrong," and I've posted links in several thousand articles
by now in quite a few different newsgroups. How long have you been
posting to newsgroups? How long have you been reading newsgroups
through Outlook?

> Excuse me. I'm a morone, I'm soooo stupid I don't know
> how to double click a link?

Sigh...depending on how the link is displayed on Outlook or whatever
you're using to read these articles, double-clicking doesn't necessarily
work. That's not the fault of the person posting the link. You badly
need to learn more about how computers and the Internet work.

> I know you never considered you could have
> BEEN WRONG.

No, that's you, absolutely refusing and refusing and refusing to
consider the possibility that maybe because of your inexperience you
might be the one who's wrong.

> Next time put the link in right.

I have put the links in right every time. You don't know what you're
talking about. And I warned you yesterday about this. Any reasonable
person would be sick and tired by now of how many times you've made
obviously false accusations and then absolutely refused to admit your
errors once they've been pointed out to you. How dare you, as many
times as both Anthony and I have corrected you about this, blame me
because you don't know what you're talking about? You have just ensured
that it will be a long time before I take anything you say seriously
again.

[Research]

O.KKKKK> POINT TAKEN.

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to not understand what I was saying. I was not proposing my own
theory. I was requiring a condition for someone else's theory which would
call it into question.

[bigdog]

Sometimes I think people get online and post outrageous things just for
the attention. It's hard to accept that anyone could actually believe
something this silly.