the Witnesses vs. the LN theorists
Robert Harris
Practically since the day of the assassination, LN theorists have told
us how terrible the witnesses were. In fact, they sound very much like
OJ would have sounded if there had been witnesses to the murders he
committed:-)
That tactic has been employed to discredit numerous doctors and nursese,
as well as the large majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza who heard the
shots that day. Of course, witnesses do indeed make errors, although
most of those errors are the result of visual confusion during a
relatively complex series of events, or faulty identifications of
suspects, sending an occasional innocent person to jail.
Most of the DP witnesses reported that they heard one shot, a delay and
then two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack - not exactly a
complicated sequence.
But in this case, there is no need to squabble about witness
reliability. And that's because we have at our disposal, the best
witnesses on the planet - ourselves.
We have at our disposal, four people who rode in the limousine with the
President that day, and thanks to Abraham Zapruder, we get a very clear
look at what they did and when they did it.
Furthermore, we can easily see when those people were exposed to the ear
shattering sound levels of the shock waves and muzzle blasts following
those shots that came from high powered rifles.
Mrs. Connally is our best "witness we can witness", because we can
follow along with her testimony and match it up with her actions in the
film. Her WC testimony reads like a narration.
She said she heard one "noise" and then looked back and saw JFK in
distress with his hands and arms having risen to the level of his neck.
We see her do exactly that in the Zapruder film, at about frame 257.
She said she heard the "second shot" shortly after that.
She stated that she heard Governor Connally shout, "On, no, no, no" just
before she heard that second shot. And we can see that he began to shout
between 242 and 250, as confirmed by the excellent article at mcadams
website, by Martin Shackleford.
Mrs. Kennedy also recalled two shots after he began to shout.
And Nellie said she never looked back again after she heard that shot.
In fact, she turned to the rear TWICE after frame 223, the last time at
about 282.
But she never looked back after frame 285.
Of course, Mrs. Connally did not know that she was placing a shot at
frame 285. We are the ones who confirm that for her, by watching her in
the film, carrying out the actions she described. If she was wrong, she
would have made four factual mistakes in regard to an extremely simple
issue, which consisted of one very loud gunshot.
To make that error, she would have to have overlooked one 130 decibel
rifleshot and then suffered the delusion of not only hearing a shot that
didn't exist, BUT REACTING TO IT AS WELL.
And we can see EXACTLY when she reacted to that shot by quickly turning
away from President Kennedy and back to her husband, then pulling him
back to her - just as she told us. And that happens at precisely, frame
291, exactly one third of a second after 285.
Roy Kellerman heard one "noise" and then a rapid "flurry" of shots which
he likened to a pair of sonic booms. And we can see him react to that
same shot, beginning within 1/18th of a second of Mrs. Connally. His
reactions are ridiculously obvious,
Notice that his reaction also began in perfect unison with Greer, who
began a pair of rapid turns to the front and back, as he panicked and
slowed the limousine. Greer would later testify that he felt the
"concussion" of that second shot, which could only have been the shock
wave of the passing bullet.
Greer stated that the second and third shots were nearly simultaneous
and we can see his reaction in near perfect unison with the others.
To get a better look at these reactions and more details about this
issue, please look at the video presentation I made on the subject. This
video is in Quicktime format and is ideal for those who wish to single
step back and forth through the frames.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/Nellie2/Nellie2.mov
I also have it posted at Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
Robert Harris
cdddraftsman
What is RH blabbering about ?
Anyone figure it out yet ?
tl
WhiskyJoe
> the Witnesses vs. the LN theorists
It's not the Witnesses vs. The LN theorists.
It's really the Witnesses vs. the Witnesses.
There is wild disagreement among the witnesses.
Were there 2, 3, 4 or more shots?
Many thought all the shots came from roughly the
TSBD direction. Many thought all the shots came
from roughly the Grassy Knoll direction.
Many thought the last two shots were closer
together. Many thought the last two shots were
right on top of each other. Many others thought
the shots were evenly spaced apart or that the
first two were closer together. And since a
rifle shot doesn't make one sound "Bang" but
two distinct sounds "Crack-Thump", it's easy
to see why many witnesses would think there
were two shots right on top of each other.
The "Crack" from the supersonic bullet
followed by the "Thump" from the muzzle blast.
And the "Crack-Thump" would be most distinct
for the final shot, where the bullet traveled
the farthest and the two sounds would arrive
the furthest apart, up to 0.1 seconds apart
for some witnesses, which might cause one to
detect as two different sounds.
The witnesses don't tell a consistent Pro LN
theory nor a Pro CT theory. They don't tell
any consistent story at all. Like typical
witnesses, they are like the blind men who
try to describe the same elephant.
bigdog
I won't even respond to your continuous insistence on a Z285 shot
because you comprise a cult of one who believes in such nonsense and I
start to nod off everytime I try to read through another of your
tortuous arguments for this belief of yours. As far as LNs insisting
that witnesses are unreliable, is there another choice? How can we
find that witnesses are reliable when we are given so many conflicting
accounts of the same event. If witnesses were reliable, there would be
a clear consensus on the number, direction, timing, and spacing of the
shots. No such consensus exists. We know that large numbers of people
got it wrong because it is not possible that they could all be right,
or even that a large percentage of them got it right. In addition,
many people simply got some things wrong and some things right. I
didn't think a CT could surprise me any more, but when you claimed
that Nellie Connally was the best witness we have, I just about fell
out of my chair. Nellie Connally is demonstrably one of the worst,
perhaps the worst witness we have from DP. Nothing she tells us is
remotely compatable with what the real best witness, Zapruder's
camera, tells us.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is wild disagreement among the witnesses." <<<
Not as to the number of shots. Pert-near ALL of the witnesses (90%+) agree
that that the number of shots did not exceed three, with more than 75% of
them agreeing that there were exactly THREE shots fired (and that includes
virtually every person who was in a position to initially report the
shooting to the world via television, radio, and wire services; e.g., Jay
Watson, Pierce Allman, Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Robert MacNeil, Jerry
Haynes, Mal Couch, Jim Underwood, plus others).
And the there's virtually no disagreement among the 200+ witnesses as to
the number of DIRECTIONS those three shots came from -- 1.
So we have a very large (almost unanimous) consensus on these two key
points:
Number of shots -- 3.
Number of directions the shots came from -- 1.
And since we know beyond all possible doubt that multiple rifle shots were
being fired from the Texas School Book Depository (to the REAR of JFK's
limo), with the three shell casings from Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano
rifle that were left on the floor of the TSBD's Sniper's Nest confirming
this fact beyond all possible doubt, then the math isn't overly difficult
beyond this point.
Now, let's see the conspiracy theorists try and tackle those above two
statistics and the above logic that resides in my last paragraph and come
up with a coherent theory about how it was somehow impossible for Lee
Harvey Oswald to have acted alone because of all those "Grassy Knoll"
witnesses.
Yes, witness testimony (in general) is, indeed, the least-reliable form of
evidence, I agree. But these two witness charts are pretty overwhelming in
the "3 SHOTS OR FEWER" and "1 DIRECTION" categories, wouldn't you say?
Especially when you consider that the number of witnesses included in
these polls is a triple-digit number:
WhiskyJoe
> Nellie Connally is demonstrably one of the
> worst, perhaps the worst witness we have
> from DP. Nothing she tells us is remotely
> Zapruder's camera, tells us.
Yes, but to CTers, that is what makes her a
great witness.
Another reason she is a great witness, she is the
only one who says she saw JFK get wounded before
Connally. The fact that she was looking forward,
and not at either man, while both JFK and Connally
are clearly reacting to their wounds in the Z220s
and Z230s, does not matter. Her eyewitness
testimony proves that she was a great witness.
Gordon Arnold was the Claude Rains of Dealey Plaza.
He has a great story of bullets buzzing over his
head and crying agents taking his camera, but
neither he nor the crying agents show up on any
of the films which is impossible if he is telling
the truth. But his story makes him a great witness.
Ed Hoffman was deaf and mute and two hundred
yards away (according to him), changed his story
radically and probably was not even there.
But even if he was blind as well, his account
elevates him to the level of a great witness.
So the mere fact that Nellie was not looking in
the right direction, which effective makes her
blind, still proves that JFK and Connally were
not wounded in the Z220s.
**************************************************
As an aside, Nellie was not the worst witness.
She was at least there. Ed Hoffman is worse.
Gordon Arnold is even worst than Arnold.
And probably the worst witness was the guy who
testified to an incredulous Arlen Specter that
he saw JFK's plane arrive at Love field, caught
a bus to downtown Dallas and waited an hour or
two at Dealey Plaza and saw the motorcade pass
by and saw a gun barrel sticking out of a window.
The fact that he is a largely Pro LN witness does
not matter. He is the worst witness.
WhiskyJoe
>> "There is wild disagreement among the
>> witnesses."
> Not as to the number of shots.
There were a fair number who only hear two shots.
Plus, a fair number of the three shot witnesses
reported that last two shots were right on top
of each other. Clearly, they miscounted (or did
not hear clearly one of the shots) and counted
the last shot twice, because of the "Crack-Thump"
sound of the bullet and the muzzle blast.
And some of the three shot witnesses may have
just guessed right.
It's not like they had to accurately count
17 shots. Even on a simple matter of counting
to three, the witnesses, as a whole, did a
poor job. As one would expect of witnesses.
And, as poor as they were, of all the issues
they were asked about, the witnesses did best
at recalling the number of shots. It was,
after all, as simple as one, two, three.
But on to the other issues, it is all downhill
from there.
Robert Harris
<4545651e-ceae-43f1...@o15g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > the Witnesses vs. the LN theorists
>
> It's not the Witnesses vs. The LN theorists.
> It's really the Witnesses vs. the Witnesses.
No it isn't.
The WC stated that "most" witnesses recalled a single shot, a delay and
then closely bunched shots at the end of the attack.
Even more importantly, that's what the limo passengers said as well. And
we can easily view the sequence of events that took place during the
shooting, including their obvious reactions to the shot at frame 285.
Alvarez confirmed that Greer and Zapruder were startled by that "noise"
at 285 but looking at stills, he apparently didn't realize that every
other nonvictim in the limo reacted at the same instant that they did.
But this was no siren, Whiskey. It was exactly what the people said, who
reacted then.
The natural presumption that you or anyone else should have, is that
this was a gunshot. If it was anything else, then that would have been
an outrageously unlikely fluke, since they were in the middle of a
shooting.
And the fact that they all SAID it was a gunshot, makes this beyond all
doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Why are you ignoring the issues in this thread?
And since you seem to have total faith in the these witnesses, then
surely, you agree that they were correct in their recollection that
there was a single, isolated shot, a delay and then closely bunched
shots at the end. Right David?
Or are those people only reliable when they agree with you?
And why don't you want to talk about the limo passengers? This is the
ONE group whom we can check.
We can see if they were accurate in the most important parts of their
testimonies. And that resource becomes enormously important, because not
only does that let us check their accuracy, but it lets us determine
when they made mistakes that were incredibly revealing.
For example, Clint Hill was obviously wrong when he said that JFK began
to react at the same time he leaped from the running board. But his
error confirmed, that the shot which provoked him to jump was
immediately prior to that, or within the time that he would have
expected JFK to react to being hit.
Nellie and Jackie were also wrong, thinking their spouses were hit by
that same shot, which was fired AFTER Nellie looked back and saw JFK in
distress, and after they both heard JBC begin to shout.
These are the people who dont have to guess about. We can see when they
reacted and we can match up that instant with when they said they heard
the shot.
And the match is perfect, David. They SAID they heard it at the same
instant that they reacted to it.
How could you possibly, not be interested in analyzing those witnesses??
David, you have acknowledged these reactions yourself. Something caused
them.
What do you think it was??
Or would you prefer to not think at all?
Robert Harris
In article
<fdd6b38d-6192-47f7...@k36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd
> shattering sound levels of the shock waves and muzzle blasts following
> those shots that came from high powered rifles.
So ear shattering that most people were still smiling, waving, and
applauding up to the moment of the head shot.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "There is wild disagreement among the witnesses."<<<
>
> Not as to the number of shots. Pert-near ALL of the witnesses (90%+) agree
> that that the number of shots did not exceed three, with more than 75% of
> them agreeing that there were exactly THREE shots fired (and that includes
> virtually every person who was in a position to initially report the
> shooting to the world via television, radio, and wire services; e.g., Jay
> Watson, Pierce Allman, Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Robert MacNeil, Jerry
> Haynes, Mal Couch, Jim Underwood, plus others).
>
Oh, you mean like Jean Hill? You can quote her TV interview where she
says there were exactly three shots?
How about Zapruder? You want to quote where he describes the head shot
and said it couldn't tell if it was one or two shots?
> And the there's virtually no disagreement among the 200+ witnesses as to
> the number of DIRECTIONS those three shots came from -- 1.
>
> So we have a very large (almost unanimous) consensus on these two key
> points:
>
> Number of shots -- 3.
>
> Number of directions the shots came from -- 1.
>
OK. Since most of them said the shots came from the grassy knoll your
logic says that all three shots came from the grassy knoll.
> And since we know beyond all possible doubt that multiple rifle shots were
> being fired from the Texas School Book Depository (to the REAR of JFK's
> limo), with the three shell casings from Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano
> rifle that were left on the floor of the TSBD's Sniper's Nest confirming
> this fact beyond all possible doubt, then the math isn't overly difficult
> beyond this point.
>
Those things could have been planted so don't cite them as proof that
three shots were fired from the sniper's nest. The one thing which
pinpoints the exact location of the rifle is the acoustical evidence
which proves three shots from the sniper's nest.
> Now, let's see the conspiracy theorists try and tackle those above two
> statistics and the above logic that resides in my last paragraph and come
> up with a coherent theory about how it was somehow impossible for Lee
> Harvey Oswald to have acted alone because of all those "Grassy Knoll"
> witnesses.
>
Logic? You don't have logic. You have bias.
> Yes, witness testimony (in general) is, indeed, the least-reliable form of
> evidence, I agree. But these two witness charts are pretty overwhelming in
> the "3 SHOTS OR FEWER" and "1 DIRECTION" categories, wouldn't you say?
And you think that proves a fact? OK then. The plurality of witnesses
said that the shots came from the grassy knoll so your logic proves that
there was shooting from the grassy knoll. Hence conspiracy. Let's see
how the WC defenders try to worm out of that one.
Robert Harris
<4896d8c5-775e-4681...@r11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course you won't. You can't, without admitting that Oswald couldn't
have fired all the shots.
So, instead of talking about the facts and evidence, you are going to
talk about Robert Harris.
> because you comprise a cult of one who believes in such nonsense
ROFLMAO!
Unfortunately, my "cult" has grown a bit, with over 50,000 viewers of
the presentation giving me almost perfect ratings.
This is rather pathetic way to evade the issues, bigdog. It tells us
exactly how badly you want to find the truth.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "There were a fair number who only hear[d] two shots." <<<
Yes, but a "two shots" witness certainly doesn't harm the LN scenario.
What a 2-shots witness does do, however, is harm the CT theories like
Groden's, Garrison's, and Stone's. It harms them greatly. Because those
CTers now have to believe that there were from 6 to 10 audible shots fired
(and never once did Oliver Stone suggest in his movie that ANY of the
gunshots were of the "silenced" variety), and yet somehow almost all of
the witnesses heard only TWO or THREE of those audible shots.
Silly.
>>> "And some of the three shot witnesses may have just guessed right."
<<<
And their guesses just happened to perfectly coincide with the number of
empty hulls on the sixth floor, eh?
Come on, Joe. I can't believe you just said that.
David Von Pein
>>> "The plurality of witnesses said that the shots came from the grassy
knoll..." <<<
Totally untrue, of course.
yeuhd
> The plurality of witnesses
> said that the shots came from the grassy knoll so your logic proves that
> there was shooting from the grassy knoll.
But the plurality of witnesses does *not* say that. You have been
asked numerous times to list at least 11 people whom John McAdams
misclassified in his earwitness tabulation, and each time you have
waived the question away.
WhiskyJoe
>> Furthermore, we can easily see when those
>> people were exposed to the ear shattering
>> sound levels of the shock waves and muzzle
>> blasts following those shots that came from
>> high powered rifles.
yehud:
> So ear shattering that most people were still
> smiling, waving, and applauding up to the moment
> of the head shot.
That is correct. Bob ear shattering blast
at Z285, recorded by the small camera jiggle
at Z291 that Alvarez first noticed was so ear
shattering it caused people to do strange,
unexplainable things.
* It caused Brehm to continue clapping as if
nothing had happened.
* It caused Jean Hill shift her gaze and to
start tracking one of the motorcycle policemen
and continue tracking him as she disappeared
from the Zapruder film. Years later she claimed
she knew the policeman and was interested in him
as a possible boyfriend. Since she was looking
at him instead of JFK, I find this pretty
believable.
* And it caused Greer to stopped looking
backwards and to resume watching where he
was driving.
It is important to realize that any kind of
movement or non movement during the Z290's,
is either a reaction to the ear shattering
blast, or is a person who is frozen in fear.
WhiskyJoe
>> "And some of the three shot witnesses may
>> have just guessed right."
> And their guesses just happened to perfectly
> coincide with the number of empty hulls on
> the sixth floor, eh?
> Come on, Joe. I can't believe you just said that.
On the simplest possible question, at best,
only about 76% of the witnesses got it right,
three shots. Getting 76% of the questions right
is good enough to get a "C" in high school.
Any high school teacher who saw only
76% per cent of his students get a counting
to 3 question right is going to wonder
"Oh my God, what's going to happen when
they get to the questions on fractions?"
It is Probably not true that 24% were confused,
and none of the them guessed three shots
correctly while all of the 76% knew firmly
that there was three shots. Probably some of
the 76% got lucky and guessed three.
I cannot believe that no confused witness
would guess three shots.
And the large number who said "three shots"
who also reported the last two shots were
right on top of each other ("Crack-Thump")
definitely were lucky. Clearly they failed
to recognize one of the shots, or forgot it,
or miscounted it, but make up for this by
counting the last shot twice.
All of which leads me to believe that even on
the simplest of questions, not even 76% of
the witnesses are reliable.
History may not be bunk but eyewitness
testimony is.
WhiskyJoe
Logic question
--------------
Assume an event occurred where three shots
were fired.
There was a shot,
then a four second pause,
then a second shot,
followed by a five second pause,
then the third shot,
all within a 9 second span.
Witness A said: There were two shots, both well
spaced apart by several seconds.
Witness B said: There were three shots.
The last two shots occurred within a fraction
of a second of each other. The first shot was
several seconds earlier.
**************************************************
Question:
Who was the better witness, A or B?
That is, which witness made the fewest errors?
David Von Pein
>>>"I cannot believe that no confused witness would guess three shots."<<<
Why would ANYBODY simply "guess" about hearing a PRECISE AND DISTINCT
number of gunshots?
AFAIK, there were zero witnesses who said something like this --- "I heard
three shots. But, oh, btw, that was really just a guess. I really don't
know how many shots I heard, maybe it was 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. But I'm
going to say that I heard exactly three shots--just to be nice."
That's silly.
yeuhd
> he likened to a pair of sonic booms.
So loud that not one of the "four" shots is audible on the Dictabelt
recording supposedly made from an open microphone in Dealey Plaza.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Whoa, Nellie.
Nellie sad she heard a shot and turned to see JFK as he appeared after
he was wounded. In the best witness, the Zapruder film, that is
exactly what occurred, Kennedy was wounded and Nellie was seen turning
to look at him. The star film maker, Mr. Zapruder, also said that he
heard a shot and saw JFK behave as he did after he was wounded.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
No, that's exactly what witnesses said.
Like Zapruder, "I couldn't be sure if it was one or two shots."
Anthony Marsh
Faulty logic. Both witnesses were right and both witnesses were wrong.
Because there were five shots and the first 3 were bunched, then a pause
of 5 seconds and the last two were bunched.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> "And some of the three shot witnesses may
>>> have just guessed right."
>
>> And their guesses just happened to perfectly
>> coincide with the number of empty hulls on
>> the sixth floor, eh?
>
>> Come on, Joe. I can't believe you just said that.
>
> On the simplest possible question, at best,
> only about 76% of the witnesses got it right,
> three shots. Getting 76% of the questions right
> is good enough to get a "C" in high school.
> Any high school teacher who saw only
> 76% per cent of his students get a counting
> to 3 question right is going to wonder
> "Oh my God, what's going to happen when
> they get to the questions on fractions?"
>
> It is Probably not true that 24% were confused,
> and none of the them guessed three shots
> correctly while all of the 76% knew firmly
> that there was three shots. Probably some of
> the 76% got lucky and guessed three.
>
Ok, so your solution to solving a crime is to take a poll.
So when 89% of the people say it was a conspiracy, that is all the proof
that we need that it was a conspiracy?
Anthony Marsh
I did so many years ago.
Anthony Marsh
Six Seconds in Dallas.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Yes, but a "two shots" witness certainly doesn't harm the LN scenario.
>
> What a 2-shots witness does do, however, is harm the CT theories like
> Groden's, Garrison's, and Stone's. It harms them greatly. Because those
> CTers now have to believe that there were from 6 to 10 audible shots fired
> (and never once did Oliver Stone suggest in his movie that ANY of the
> gunshots were of the "silenced" variety), and yet somehow almost all of
> the witnesses heard only TWO or THREE of those audible shots.
>
> Silly.
>
>
More strawman arguments. No witness said 10 shots.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, look at the damn films.
yeuhd
I have. That's why I wrote what I did.
yeuhd
Josiah Thompson's tabulation in "Six Seconds in Dallas" omitted:
Marrion Baker (TSBD), Virgie Baker (Knoll), Glen Bennett (TSBD), Doris
Burns (Knoll), James M. Chaney (TSBD), Marvin Faye Chism (TSBD),
Malcolm Couch (TSBD), Tom Dillard (TSBD), Robert Edwards (TSBD), Amos
Euins (TSBD), Jack Franzen (from inside the car), Mrs. Jack Franzen
(TSBD), George Hickey (TSBD, but at ground level), Clinton Hill
(TSBD), Yola Hopson (from street below TSBD), Roy Kellerman (TSBD and
from car), Jerry Kivett (TSBD), James Lacy (TSBD), Paul Landis (TSBD &
Knoll), Winston Lawson (Elm-Main infield), Austin Miller (inside the
car), T.E. Moore (TSBD), F. Lee Mudd (unsure), Joe Murphy (TSBD or
Knoll), Jean Newman (Knoll), Roberta Parker (Knoll), Samuel
Paternostro (could not tell), David Powers (Knoll or TSBD), John Ready
(TSBD), Madie Reese (alcove near the benches), Mrs. Robert Reid
(TSBD), Emory Roberts (from the right side), William Shelley (Knoll),
Garland Slack (Knoll & TSBD), Alan Smith (TSBD), Malcolm Summers (1st
shot TSBD, others does not know), Warren Taylor (TSBD), Linda Willis
(she does not know), Mary Woodward (Knoll), Walter Winborn (he does
not know), S.R. Yates (Knoll),
Thompson miscategorized:
John Chism (TSBD), Jesse Curry (1st unsure, 2nd & 3rd TSBD), Harold
Elkins (could not tell), Bobby Hargis (conflicting testimony), Emmett
Hudson (TSBD), Robert Jackson (TSBD), Luke Mooney (was not in Dealey
Plaza), Forrest Sorrels (Knoll or TSBD), Allan Sweat (was not in
Dealey Plaza), James Underwood (TSBD), Harry Weatherford (was not in
Dealey Plaza), Seymour Weitzman (could not tell), Otis Williams (Knoll
or Courthouse), Abraham Zapruder (could not tell).
yeuhd
> Thompson miscategorized:
>
> John Chism (TSBD), Jesse Curry (1st unsure, 2nd & 3rd TSBD), Harold
> Elkins (could not tell), Bobby Hargis (conflicting testimony), Emmett
> Hudson (TSBD), Robert Jackson (TSBD), Luke Mooney (was not in Dealey
> Plaza), Forrest Sorrels (Knoll or TSBD), Allan Sweat (was not in
> Dealey Plaza), James Underwood (TSBD), Harry Weatherford (was not in
> Dealey Plaza), Seymour Weitzman (could not tell), Otis Williams (Knoll
> or Courthouse), Abraham Zapruder (could not tell).
Let me modify two of those.
Thompson miscategorzied:
Harold Elkins (was not in Dealey Plaza), Seymour Weitzman (was not in
Dealey Plaza).
tomnln
see>>>
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbde11a3-4d10-481b...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 23, 6:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2010 8:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "The plurality of witnesses said that the shots came from the grassy
>>> knoll..."<<<
>>
>>> Totally untrue, of course.
>>
>> Six Seconds in Dallas.
>
> Josiah Thompson's tabulation in "Six Seconds in Dallas" omitted:
>
> Marrion Baker (TSBD), Virgie Baker (Knoll), Glen Bennett (TSBD), Doris
> Burns (Knoll), James M. Chaney (TSBD), Marvin Faye Chism (TSBD),
> Malcolm Couch (TSBD), Tom Dillard (TSBD), Robert Edwards (TSBD), Amos
> Euins (TSBD), Jack Franzen (from inside the car), Mrs. Jack Franzen
> (TSBD), George Hickey (TSBD, but at ground level), Clinton Hill
> (TSBD), Yola Hopson (from street below TSBD), Roy Kellerman (TSBD and
> from car), Jerry Kivett (TSBD), James Lacy (TSBD), Paul Landis (TSBD&
> Knoll), Winston Lawson (Elm-Main infield), Austin Miller (inside the
> car), T.E. Moore (TSBD), F. Lee Mudd (unsure), Joe Murphy (TSBD or
> Knoll), Jean Newman (Knoll), Roberta Parker (Knoll), Samuel
> Paternostro (could not tell), David Powers (Knoll or TSBD), John Ready
> (TSBD), Madie Reese (alcove near the benches), Mrs. Robert Reid
> (TSBD), Emory Roberts (from the right side), William Shelley (Knoll),
> shot TSBD, others does not know), Warren Taylor (TSBD), Linda Willis
> (she does not know), Mary Woodward (Knoll), Walter Winborn (he does
> not know), S.R. Yates (Knoll),
>
> Thompson miscategorized:
>
> Elkins (could not tell), Bobby Hargis (conflicting testimony), Emmett
> Hudson (TSBD), Robert Jackson (TSBD), Luke Mooney (was not in Dealey
> Plaza), Forrest Sorrels (Knoll or TSBD), Allan Sweat (was not in
> Dealey Plaza), James Underwood (TSBD), Harry Weatherford (was not in
> Dealey Plaza), Seymour Weitzman (could not tell), Otis Williams (Knoll
> or Courthouse), Abraham Zapruder (could not tell).
>
We've been over this before and McAdams knows it. He takes the grassy
knoll witnesses and moved them over to the could not tell category
because they made some statement about not being sure about something
else. Zapruder told the FBI agent that the position of the assassin was
behind him.
Anthony Marsh
Because the background noise was so loud and the transmitter cut off the
volume.
WhiskyJoe
> tomnln
> Zapruder said "Behind Me'
I'm certain the last thing tomnln would want to
do is to mislead someone. So, just to clarify
things, here is Zapruder's entire testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
Essentially, Zapruder says he could not tell from
the sound of the shots which direction they were
fired from. But he did see a policeman toward him,
so he thought the shots may have come from the
Grassy Knoll.
It is reasonable to say the policeman was a
Grassy Knoll witness. But it is not reasonable
to say Mr. Zapruder was a Grassy Knoll witness,
because Mr. Zapruder's opinion was clearly formed
by what the policeman thought, not be what
Mr. Zapruder heard or observed.
By using creative accounting, like putting
Mr. Zapruder in the "Grassy Knoll" category,
I can see how one can claim that the plurality
of the witnesses heard the shots came from
the Grassy Knoll.
And, if tomnln thought Mr. Zapruder's testimony
clearly showed he was a Grassy Knoll witness,
why didn't he provide a link to his entire
testimony so we could see that for ourselves?
yeuhd
> We've been over this before and McAdams knows it. He takes the grassy
> knoll witnesses and moved them over to the could not tell category
> because they made some statement about not being sure about something
> else.
"Witnesses"? The only witness who was in Dealey Plaza whom John
McAdams classifies as "does not know" or "could not tell", whom Josiah
Thompson had classified as a grassy knoll witness, was Abraham
Zapruder.
Still putting your faith in Thompson's tabulation? You haven't
addressed the 41 earwitnesses whom Thompson omitted.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> tomnln
>> Zapruder said "Behind Me'
>
> I'm certain the last thing tomnln would want to
> do is to mislead someone. So, just to clarify
> things, here is Zapruder's entire testimony.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm
>
> Essentially, Zapruder says he could not tell from
> the sound of the shots which direction they were
> fired from. But he did see a policeman toward him,
> so he thought the shots may have come from the
> Grassy Knoll.
>
Deflection. You ignore the advice of Loftus to look for the earliest
statements. His earliest statement to the FBI was that the position of the
assassin was behind him. In a TV interview he pointed toward his right,
the grassy knoll.
> It is reasonable to say the policeman was a
> Grassy Knoll witness. But it is not reasonable
> to say Mr. Zapruder was a Grassy Knoll witness,
> because Mr. Zapruder's opinion was clearly formed
> by what the policeman thought, not be what
> Mr. Zapruder heard or observed.
>
Wrong. Zapruder made his first statement before any others were published.
> By using creative accounting, like putting
> Mr. Zapruder in the "Grassy Knoll" category,
> I can see how one can claim that the plurality
> of the witnesses heard the shots came from
> the Grassy Knoll.
>
> And, if tomnln thought Mr. Zapruder's testimony
> clearly showed he was a Grassy Knoll witness,
> why didn't he provide a link to his entire
> testimony so we could see that for ourselves?
>
Why didn't YOU provide a link to his first statement so we could see
that for ourselves?
Bud
Did he say he heard shots fired from behind him?
Bud
Because then we could read this exchange, and know Tom wasn`t giving
the full picture...
Mr Liebeler: But you didn`t form any opinion at the time as to what
direction the shots came from actually?
Mr Zapruder: No.
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ec536568-2aaa-4825...@y38g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
As usual you cherry pick and ignore what Zapruder said just after the
shooting. That the position of the assassin was behind him.
yeuhd
Why don't YOU provide a link to this television interview?
From aa...@panix.com Sun Apr 25 23:44:47 2010
Status: R
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
>From anthon...@comcast.net Sun Apr 25 23:44:47 2010
Return-Path: <anthon...@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2761832BD0
for <aa...@panix.com>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:44:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mscs.mu.edu (euclid.mscs.mu.edu [134.48.4.19])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E2D1F08C
for <aa...@panix.com>; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:44:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (qmail 3041 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2010 03:46:40 -0000
Received: from mcadams.posc.mu.edu ([134.48.30.18])
(envelope-sender <anthon...@comcast.net>)
by mscs.mu.edu (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <aa...@panix.com>; 26 Apr 2010 03:46:40 -0000
To: aa...@panix.com
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:44:36 -0400
From: Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Blitzer interviews Bill Clinton on threats, etc.
References: <4nvps5dfuuv55pi8r...@4ax.com> <hcf7t55284ji2em2k...@4ax.com> <dri7t55h5blujd6t4...@4ax.com> <35e9629a-a16f-4a8a...@u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> <9jn8t5hopchk4mvto...@4ax.com> <aa7e83b4-0ecc-4492...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <aa7e83b4-0ecc-4492...@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetwindows-1252; formatflowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.233.148.102
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.233.148.102
Message-ID: <4bd50c19$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1272253465 71.233.148.102 (25 Apr 2010 22:44:25 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Apr 2010 22:44:25 -0500, 71.233.148.102
Lines: 89
On 4/25/2010 7:30 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> On Apr 25, 10:28 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2010 11:22:14 -0400, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter,
>>
>>> Yes, Clinton made unpartisan remarks,
>>
>> Indeed he did. Let me quote him:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> "... look, George W. Bush had some threats
>> against him by people who strongly disagreed with his policies.
>> Some -- Eric Cantor got a threat here. The governor of New Jersey has
>> been, at least jokingly, threatened by some of the interest groups in
>> New Jersey, the Republican governor of New Jersey".
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> It is an interesting topic. One muses at the reason for the upsurge
>> in violent threats nowadays. However all is not lost, according to one
>> expert:
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/800158--u-s-will-emerge-int...
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Even those who count themselves as national worriers are beginning to
>> realize the world is getting the wrong idea about the roiling anger so
>> evident Stateside. Yes, it is cause for concern, they say. But
>> whatever happens, America is going to emerge intact, on a trajectory
>> to a better day.
>>
>> “Am I worried? You bet. Are we are spiralling into the seventh circle
>> of hell? Absolutely not,” said Mark Potok, whose Alabama-based
>> Southern Poverty Law Center
>
>
>
> I don't trust the SPLC see
And why not? Only because they are Liberal?
Or Only because they are black?
> http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/klan-in-rhode-island-splc-exaggerates.html
> and http://theothermccain.com/2010/03/02/how-splc-hypes-the-hate/ and
> http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/confirmed-splc-exaggerated-about-klan.html
> enough said!
>
> I'm still waiting for a cite on your assertion that
>
>
> "It is the dramatic increase in the number of threats that
> has caught the attention of the protective services around Obama."
>
>
> And please don't tell me the SPLC.
>
You won't even trust the US government report under Bush.
>
>
> says there are now 512 anti-government
>> militias operating in the U.S.
>>
>> “But I do believe we are living through historic backlash. We saw it
>> with the end of slavery, we saw it with the arrival of large numbers
>> of Catholic immigrants, we saw it when women got the vote.
>> Historically, we’ve almost always taken two steps forward, one step
>> backward.
>>
>> “But the lesson is we are not doomed. At the end of the day we went
>> through 250 years of slavery, a century of Jim Crow laws and then 40
>> years later tens of millions of white Americans were willing vote for
>> a black president. And every poll shows that each new generation of
>> young people are much more open to interractial marriage than their
>> parents. Whatever happens through this rough patch, we’ll be fine.”
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>
Bud
How did he conclude the shots came from behind him, Tony? Did he
ever say it was the sound of the shots that led to this conclusion? Or
did he have eyes in the back of his head?
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bd50888$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
Guess you didn't get the memo. WC defenders are required to say that he
got that impression by seeing all the spectators run up to the grassy
knoll. Don't mention seeing the police running up there. Don't mention
his comments about seeing the wound in the right temple and don't upload
a still of his holding his hand where Kilduff also pointed.
Bud
> On 4/26/2010 12:24 PM,Budwrote:
Well, nothing there about why Zapruder concluded the shots came from
behind him. I guess Tony can`t produce anything from Zapruder saying he
placed the shots behind him based on the sound of the shots, so I guess
Tony can`t support the idea that Zapruder was a knoll earwitness. Makes me
wonder why he objected at all.
yeuhd
> got that impression by seeing all the spectators run up to the grassy
> knoll. Don't mention seeing the police running up there.
Why not? The first law officers who went up the knoll were Deputy Sheriffs
Buddy Walthers and Eugene Boone, and Dallas police Officer Clyde Haygood.
All were on Main Street north of Houston when they heard what sounded like
shots. They had no personal knowledge of where the shots came from. And
Zapruder said he got his impression of the origin of the shots partly from
them!
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 26, 5:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Guess you didn't get the memo. WC defenders are required to say that he
>> got that impression by seeing all the spectators run up to the grassy
>> knoll. Don't mention seeing the police running up there.
>
> Why not? The first law officers who went up the knoll were Deputy Sheriffs
> Buddy Walthers and Eugene Boone, and Dallas police Officer Clyde Haygood.
Why did you intentionally leave out Joe Smith? What are you trying to
hide?
> All were on Main Street north of Houston when they heard what sounded like
> shots. They had no personal knowledge of where the shots came from. And
> Zapruder said he got his impression of the origin of the shots partly from
> them!
>
Joe Smith got his impression because a woman told him that they were
shooting from the bushes. You would have interpreted that as meaning the
TSBD.
Anthony Marsh
I did not specify why Zapruder thought that and I will not play your
stupid game. The question about where the shots came from did not specify
only hearing or seeing, or anything else. Just first impression.
yeuhd
> On 4/26/2010 11:16 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 5:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Guess you didn't get the memo. WC defenders are required to say that he
> >> got that impression by seeing all the spectators run up to the grassy
> >> knoll. Don't mention seeing the police running up there.
>
> > Why not? The first law officers who went up the knoll were Deputy Sheriffs
> > Buddy Walthers and Eugene Boone, and Dallas police Officer Clyde Haygood.
>
> Why did you intentionally leave out Joe Smith? What are you trying to
> hide?
You wrote "the police running up there", referring to the grassy knoll
(see above). Joe Marshall Smith was not one of the officers who ran up
the knoll.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:960de450-09a2-47c5...@e14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bd6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Bud
What silly game, weighing information in context on it`s merits?
> The question about where the shots came from did not specify
> only hearing or seeing, or anything else. Just first impression.
Zapruder said he had no first impression...
Mr. Liebeler: But you didn`t form any opinion at the time as to what
Anthony Marsh
Wrong.
> Mr. Liebeler: But you didn`t form any opinion at the time as to what
> direction the shots came from actually?
>
> Mr Zapruder: No.
>
Selection bias. You are ignoring what Zapruder said that day, his
earliest account.
Anthony Marsh
Joe Smith is the first one who ran up the knoll and behind the fence.
yeuhd
Joe Smith ran down the spur of Elm Street, past the entrance of the
TSBD, to the parking lot. He was NOT one of the officers running up
the knoll.
Mr. LIEBELER. I will put the No. 4 in a circle on the spot of
approximately where you were standing at the time the motorcade went
by. Is that approximately correct?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were facing east up Elm Street away from the triple
underpass?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
. . . . .
Mr. SMITH. I glanced around and was watching the crowd to make sure
they stayed back out of the way of the motorcade, and also to make
sure none of the cars started up or anything. Then I heard the shots,
and I immediately proceeded from this point.
Mr. LIEBELER. Point 4 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm
Mr. SMITH. I started up toward this Book Depository after I heard the
shots, and I didn't know where the shots came from. I had no idea,
because it was such a ricochet.
Mr. LIEBELER. An echo effect?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.; and this woman came up to me and she was just in
hysterics. She told me, "They are shooting the President from the
bushes." So I immediately proceeded up here.
Mr. LIEBELER. You proceeded up to an area immediately behind the
concrete structure here that is described by Elm Street and the street
that runs immediately in front of the Texas School Book Depository, is
that right?
Mr. SMITH. I was checking all the bushes and I checked all the cars in
the parking lot.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a parking lot in behind this grassy area back
from Elm Street toward the railroad tracks, and you went down to the
parking lot and looked around?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir…
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be27a66e-b852-4857...@c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Yet I just quoted him saying that very thing.
> > Mr. Liebeler: But you didn`t form any opinion at the time as to what
> > direction the shots came from actually?
>
> > Mr Zapruder: No.
>
> Selection bias.
Yah, I`m selecting when he said he got his first impression. That is
what you claimed was required,"Just first impression", right?
> You are ignoring what Zapruder said that day, his
> earliest account.
It just doesn`t contain the information about when or how he formed
the opinion about where the shots came from in his earliest account.
He didn`t explain it until he was before the WC.
Robert Harris
<df4b5a58-74f1-48df...@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:31�pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Roy Kellerman heard one "noise" and then a rapid "flurry" of shots which
> > he likened to a pair of sonic booms.
>
> So loud that not one of the "four" shots is audible on the Dictabelt
> recording supposedly made from an open microphone in Dealey Plaza.
What a stupid argument.
The dictabelt recording was made long after the shooting ended.
Robert Harris
yeuhd
> In article
> <df4b5a58-74f1-48df-b3df-3baa3f729...@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 1:31 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Roy Kellerman heard one "noise" and then a rapid "flurry" of shots which
> > > he likened to a pair of sonic booms.
>
> > So loud that not one of the "four" shots is audible on the Dictabelt
> > recording supposedly made from an open microphone in Dealey Plaza.
>
> What a stupid argument.
>
> The dictabelt recording was made long after the shooting ended.
It's not my claim that the Dictabelt recording was made in Dealey
Plaza. Hence my use of the word "supposedly". But as you are well
aware, the HSCA and numerous conspiracy theorists DO believe it was
recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting.