Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Donald Willis
Jun 4, 2012, 9:03:21 AM6/4/12
to
Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect
Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
was not a witness & implies that there was no assassination! That he neither
saw nor heard anything out of the ordinary that day. It is neither a complement
nor a prelude to his later statements. It's an alternate and very bizarre
version of his story.
Here is his recap of the hour of the assassination:
"At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came
downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These
employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last
name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge
Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade." [Reason #3]
Jarman's words tally with the reality of the day only in the fact that the five
6th-floor workers did come down about noon. After that, he sinks into some kind
of surreal quicksand, where the highlight of the afternoon was simply a
"parade".
The second-most bizarre element of Jarman's afternoon is who is there with him
outside: Bonnie Ray Williams. Nowhere did the latter say that he had stepped
out of the depository between 11:45 and 12:30. Jarman here may be making a good
guess: The other four 6th-floor workers did, eventually, get out on the street.
But it's a wrong guess.
Jarman has Williams "watching the parade", which did not reach Dealey until
about 12:25, when it was led by a pilot car and a motorcycle unit. At 12:25,
Williams was upstairs, on the 5th or 6th floor or the stairs. But Jarman does
not seem to have known *where* Williams was at this time. And if he did *not*
know, then he, Jarman, was neither out front nor on the 5th floor.
Did Jarman simply misremember Williams' presence out front? If so, it was a
misremembering that he couldn't shake. At the Warren Commission hearings,
Jarman again recalls going out front with Williams about noon: "Then I went out
in front of the building [with] Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray, and Danny Arce...."
(v3p201) It takes counsel, finally, to disabuse him of his odd notion (p202).
Joseph Ball seems to have known better than Jarman what went on that day in
front of the depository. Jarman has disappeared into the quicksand once again;
he seems to have had no idea whatsoever of Williams' movements during the noon
hour.
The third-most bizarre element of Jarman's affidavit concerns a name *not*
named: Harold Norman. By the time of their respective Commission testimonies,
Norman and Jarman have become inextricably linked. According to Norman, he and
Jarman "went outside" together (v3 p189), then went upstairs together (p190),
about 12:25. But, on Nov. 23, 1963, Jarman states (in his only signed
statement) that he went outside with the 6th-floor workers, whom he names, and
Norman was not one of them. Norman himself apparently did not make a statement
until Tuesday, the 26th, & then it was fraught with items re falling dirt and
heads out windows and runnings to and from and back to windows, none of which
items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
it's not an alternate universe.
So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
himself, Norman, & Williams, retroactively, on the 5th floor.
[As of 11/26/63, no photos of the fifth-floor three had apparently yet been
published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
#5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
"colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named Brennan, & did a man named
Brennan identify you downstairs? No one that you know... no one said, 'This is
the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
too.]
The mere supposed presence of Norman & Jarman worked to Williams' advantage--he
could be seen to be just another depository worker, and could have it overlooked
that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman &
Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
belatedly, said that he heard rifle & bullet sounds from above, while Jarman
said that he opened the far-west window facing Elm, after the trio supposedly
ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
stairwell was completely blocked by shelves & boxes. This is the period during
which Oswald would have descended the stairs." (Warren Report p153)
Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
*west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
dcw
--
Donald Willis
Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
was not a witness & implies that there was no assassination! That he neither
saw nor heard anything out of the ordinary that day. It is neither a complement
nor a prelude to his later statements. It's an alternate and very bizarre
version of his story.
Here is his recap of the hour of the assassination:
"At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came
downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These
employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last
name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge
Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade." [Reason #3]
Jarman's words tally with the reality of the day only in the fact that the five
6th-floor workers did come down about noon. After that, he sinks into some kind
of surreal quicksand, where the highlight of the afternoon was simply a
"parade".
The second-most bizarre element of Jarman's afternoon is who is there with him
outside: Bonnie Ray Williams. Nowhere did the latter say that he had stepped
out of the depository between 11:45 and 12:30. Jarman here may be making a good
guess: The other four 6th-floor workers did, eventually, get out on the street.
But it's a wrong guess.
Jarman has Williams "watching the parade", which did not reach Dealey until
about 12:25, when it was led by a pilot car and a motorcycle unit. At 12:25,
Williams was upstairs, on the 5th or 6th floor or the stairs. But Jarman does
not seem to have known *where* Williams was at this time. And if he did *not*
know, then he, Jarman, was neither out front nor on the 5th floor.
Did Jarman simply misremember Williams' presence out front? If so, it was a
misremembering that he couldn't shake. At the Warren Commission hearings,
Jarman again recalls going out front with Williams about noon: "Then I went out
in front of the building [with] Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray, and Danny Arce...."
(v3p201) It takes counsel, finally, to disabuse him of his odd notion (p202).
Joseph Ball seems to have known better than Jarman what went on that day in
front of the depository. Jarman has disappeared into the quicksand once again;
he seems to have had no idea whatsoever of Williams' movements during the noon
hour.
The third-most bizarre element of Jarman's affidavit concerns a name *not*
named: Harold Norman. By the time of their respective Commission testimonies,
Norman and Jarman have become inextricably linked. According to Norman, he and
Jarman "went outside" together (v3 p189), then went upstairs together (p190),
about 12:25. But, on Nov. 23, 1963, Jarman states (in his only signed
statement) that he went outside with the 6th-floor workers, whom he names, and
Norman was not one of them. Norman himself apparently did not make a statement
until Tuesday, the 26th, & then it was fraught with items re falling dirt and
heads out windows and runnings to and from and back to windows, none of which
items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
it's not an alternate universe.
So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
himself, Norman, & Williams, retroactively, on the 5th floor.
[As of 11/26/63, no photos of the fifth-floor three had apparently yet been
published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
#5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
"colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named Brennan, & did a man named
Brennan identify you downstairs? No one that you know... no one said, 'This is
the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
too.]
The mere supposed presence of Norman & Jarman worked to Williams' advantage--he
could be seen to be just another depository worker, and could have it overlooked
that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman &
Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
belatedly, said that he heard rifle & bullet sounds from above, while Jarman
said that he opened the far-west window facing Elm, after the trio supposedly
ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
stairwell was completely blocked by shelves & boxes. This is the period during
which Oswald would have descended the stairs." (Warren Report p153)
Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
*west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
dcw
--
Donald Willis
Bud
Jun 4, 2012, 6:27:49 PM6/4/12
to
make your ideas less likely. By the time you get to fifty you will
have ruled out conspiracy completely.
burgundy
Jun 4, 2012, 10:50:15 PM6/4/12
to
BURGUNDY..
seansmil...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2012, 2:26:43 PM6/5/12
to
CONSPIRACY! Okay: .....
dcw
bigdog
Jun 5, 2012, 3:52:53 PM6/5/12
to
On Jun 4, 9:03 am, Donald Willis <dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
details. There's a logical approach.
seansmil...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2012, 5:52:43 PM6/5/12
to
title, at least 5 other supporting pieces of evidence, including photos,
police-radio messages, & other testimony/statements....
dcw
bigdog
Jun 6, 2012, 12:08:32 AM6/6/12
to
about what Jarman said and the problems with what he said. What were
you reading.
seansmil...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2012, 10:43:36 AM6/6/12
to
dcw
bigdog
Jun 6, 2012, 1:59:01 PM6/6/12
to
claimed I ignored the other points made in the OP. Then I pointed out
to you that every point made in the OP had to do with Jarman's
testimony and how it conflicted with other evidence. Now you are
whining that I ignored other pieces of evidence. No one is challenging
the other evidence. None of the other evidence mentioned conflicts
with the finding that Oswald was the shooter. It only conflicts with
some elements of Jarman's recollections. The fact that you can find a
witness whose account doesn't square with other known facts hardly
makes the case for a conspiracy. We have numerous examples of
witnesses whose accounts can be refuted using other evidence. That
isn't evidence of a conspiracy either. It is evidence that humans have
imperfect memories and what they remember isn't always what actually
happened.
So let me say it again and hopefully this time you will understand.
The entire OP was about conflicts with Jarman's recollections. I
simply pointed out that a witness giving an account that doesn't fit
with other evidence isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 6, 2012, 7:10:05 PM6/6/12
to
police-radio message). Yes, if Oswald was "colored" (Euins first
reports).
dcw
Jason Burke
Jun 6, 2012, 9:40:48 PM6/6/12
to
On 6/6/2012 4:10 PM, dklou...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:59 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 10:43 am, seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 9:08:32 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Jun 5, 5:52 pm, seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 12:52:53 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:03 am, Donald Willis<dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect
>>>>>>> Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
>>
>>>>>>> James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
>>>>>>> statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
>>>>>>> was not a witness& implies that there was no assassination! That he neither
> On Jun 6, 10:59 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 10:43 am, seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 9:08:32 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Jun 5, 5:52 pm, seansmileyran...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 12:52:53 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 4, 9:03 am, Donald Willis<dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect
>>>>>>> Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
>>
>>>>>>> James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
>>>>>>> statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
>>>>>>> heads out windows and runnings to and from and back to windows, none of which
>>>>>>> items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
>>>>>>> it's not an alternate universe.
>>
>>>>>>> So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
>>>>>>> and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
>>>>>>> somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
>>>>>>> some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
>>>>>>> actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
>>>>>>> morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
>>>>>>> himself, Norman,& Williams, retroactively, on the 5th floor.
>>>>>>> items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
>>>>>>> it's not an alternate universe.
>>
>>>>>>> So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
>>>>>>> and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
>>>>>>> somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
>>>>>>> some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
>>>>>>> actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
>>>>>>> morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
>>>>>>> [As of 11/26/63, no photos of the fifth-floor three had apparently yet been
>>>>>>> published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
>>>>>>> Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
>>>>>>> As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
>>>>>>> testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
>>>>>>> Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
>>>>>>> Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
>>>>>>> in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
>>
>>>>>>> Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
>>>>>>> story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
>>>>>>> apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
>>>>>>> As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
>>>>>>> was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
>>>>>>> Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
>>>>>>> window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
>>>>>>> #5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
>>>>>>> told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
>>>>>>> "colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
>>>>>>> course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
>>>>>>> came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named Brennan,& did a man named
>>>>>>> published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
>>>>>>> Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
>>>>>>> As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
>>>>>>> testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
>>>>>>> Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
>>>>>>> Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
>>>>>>> in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
>>
>>>>>>> Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
>>>>>>> story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
>>>>>>> apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
>>>>>>> As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
>>>>>>> was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
>>>>>>> Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
>>>>>>> window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
>>>>>>> #5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
>>>>>>> told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
>>>>>>> "colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
>>>>>>> course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
>>>>>>> Brennan identify you downstairs? No one that you know... no one said, 'This is
>>>>>>> the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
>>>>>>> many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
>>>>>>> too.]
>>
>>>>>>> The mere supposed presence of Norman& Jarman worked to Williams' advantage--he
>>>>>>> the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
>>>>>>> many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
>>>>>>> too.]
>>
>>>>>>> could be seen to be just another depository worker, and could have it overlooked
>>>>>>> that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman&
>>>>>>> Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
>>>>>>> aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
>>>>>>> belatedly, said that he heard rifle& bullet sounds from above, while Jarman
>>>>>>> that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman&
>>>>>>> Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
>>>>>>> aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
>>>>>>> said that he opened the far-west window facing Elm, after the trio supposedly
>>>>>>> ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
>>>>>>> stairwell was completely blocked by shelves& boxes. This is the period during
>>>>>>> ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
>>>>>>> which Oswald would have descended the stairs." (Warren Report p153)
>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
>>>>>>> the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
>>>>>>> window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
>>>>>>> Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
>>>>>>> not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
>>>>>>> available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
>>>>>>> *west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
>>
>>>>>>> dcw
>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Donald Willis
>>
>>>>>> So you suspect a conspiracy because one witness was fuzzy on the
>>>>>> details. There's a logical approach.
>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn't even read the post. There are, as suggested in the
>>>>> title, at least 5 other supporting pieces of evidence, including photos,
>>>>> police-radio messages,& other testimony/statements....
>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
>>>>>>> the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
>>>>>>> window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
>>>>>>> Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
>>>>>>> not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
>>>>>>> available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
>>>>>>> *west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
>>
>>>>>>> dcw
>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Donald Willis
>>
>>>>>> So you suspect a conspiracy because one witness was fuzzy on the
>>>>>> details. There's a logical approach.
>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn't even read the post. There are, as suggested in the
>>>>> title, at least 5 other supporting pieces of evidence, including photos,
>>
>>>>> dcw
>>
>>>> I did read the entire post and that's why I know every paragraph was
>>>> about what Jarman said and the problems with what he said. What were
>>>> you reading.
>>
>>> I'll take this as a compliment--i.e., you're saying I stick to my subject. However, your post here is only tenuously connected with your last post. And it doesn't answer my own post re other pieces of evidence, not just Jarman's bizarre statement....
>>> dcw
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about (hardly a first). First you
>> claimed I ignored the other points made in the OP. Then I pointed out
>> to you that every point made in the OP had to do with Jarman's
>> testimony and how it conflicted with other evidence. Now you are
>> whining that I ignored other pieces of evidence. No one is challenging
>> the other evidence. None of the other evidence mentioned conflicts
>> with the finding that Oswald was the shooter.
>
> Yes, if Oswald fired from the "second window from the end" (12:37
> police-radio message). Yes, if Oswald was "colored" (Euins first
> reports).
> dcw
Don't'cha hate those first unconfirmed reports?
>>>>> dcw
>>
>>>> I did read the entire post and that's why I know every paragraph was
>>>> about what Jarman said and the problems with what he said. What were
>>>> you reading.
>>
>>> I'll take this as a compliment--i.e., you're saying I stick to my subject. However, your post here is only tenuously connected with your last post. And it doesn't answer my own post re other pieces of evidence, not just Jarman's bizarre statement....
>>> dcw
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about (hardly a first). First you
>> claimed I ignored the other points made in the OP. Then I pointed out
>> to you that every point made in the OP had to do with Jarman's
>> testimony and how it conflicted with other evidence. Now you are
>> whining that I ignored other pieces of evidence. No one is challenging
>> the other evidence. None of the other evidence mentioned conflicts
>> with the finding that Oswald was the shooter.
>
> Yes, if Oswald fired from the "second window from the end" (12:37
> police-radio message). Yes, if Oswald was "colored" (Euins first
> reports).
> dcw
bigdog
Jun 6, 2012, 9:41:38 PM6/6/12
to
witness reports. Now if you could just come up with some hard evidence
that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime, you would have
something worth talking about.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 7, 2012, 8:32:11 AM6/7/12
to
shooter.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 7, 2012, 8:32:31 AM6/7/12
to
up the nature of their initial exchange, whether or not it was based
on erroneous info.... There's your conspiracy in miniature.
dcw
Bud
Jun 7, 2012, 8:33:40 AM6/7/12
to
On Jun 6, 9:40 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
Actually he loves them. He plays silly games constructing an
alternative universe with them.
alternative universe with them.
Bud
Jun 7, 2012, 8:33:47 AM6/7/12
to
"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for
troublesome data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time
for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood."
Bud
Jun 7, 2012, 8:33:56 AM6/7/12
to
are saying. The more people involved and complexity required the more
implausible your ideas become. They collapse under the weight.
> dcw
bigdog
Jun 7, 2012, 3:11:28 PM6/7/12
to
conjectures are not evidence of anything.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 7, 2012, 3:12:09 PM6/7/12
to
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Jun 7, 2012, 3:12:52 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 8:33 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 4, 10:50 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:27 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 9:03 am, Donald Willis<dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect
>>>> Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
>>
>>>> James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
>>>> statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
>>>> was not a witness& implies that there was no assassination! That he neither
> On Jun 4, 10:50 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:27 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 9:03 am, Donald Willis<dcwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Jarman's Initial Fantasyland Version of 11/22/63 (Fifty Reasons To Suspect
>>>> Conspiracy: #s 3-8)
>>
>>>> James Jarman Jr.'s 11/23/63 affidavit is perhaps the most baffling public
>>>> statement of any witness in the JFK assassination. In fact, it suggests that he
>>>> heads out windows and runnings to and from and back to windows, none of which
>>>> items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
>>>> it's not an alternate universe.
>>
>>>> So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
>>>> and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
>>>> somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
>>>> some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
>>>> actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
>>>> morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
>>>> himself, Norman,& Williams, retroactively, on the 5th floor.
>>>> items was mentioned again in 1963-4 in connection with Norman. [Reason #4] But
>>>> it's not an alternate universe.
>>
>>>> So, Jarman, on 11/23/63: Nothing about Norman, nothing about an assassination,
>>>> and an obvious misstatement re Williams. Jarman seems to have been sequestered
>>>> somewhere soundproofed, by noon, on the 22nd, as a tabula rasa subject; and, for
>>>> some reason, he was released a little too early, exposing this ploy. His last
>>>> actual observation, on the 22nd, was seeing five men laying a floor, in the
>>>> morning. By the 24th, however, he has been fully briefed, and for the FBI has
>>>> [As of 11/26/63, no photos of the fifth-floor three had apparently yet been
>>>> published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
>>>> Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
>>>> As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
>>>> testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
>>>> Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
>>>> Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
>>>> in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
>>
>>>> Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
>>>> story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
>>>> apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
>>>> As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
>>>> was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
>>>> Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
>>>> window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
>>>> #5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
>>>> told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
>>>> "colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
>>>> course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
>>>> came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named Brennan,& did a man named
>>>> published. Jarman's image appears in some versions of the Hughes film ("The
>>>> Killing of a President" p207), but not in others ("Pictures of the Pain" p272).
>>>> As Harold Weisberg noted, Jarman does not seem to be--"at the time [he]
>>>> testified" that he was--in his window, in the Hughes film (Photographic
>>>> Whitewash p279). To Dave Dix, it seems as if Jarman's image in the Dillard
>>>> Leica has been "dodged in" (POTP p442). And neither Jarman nor Norman show up
>>>> in the Powell slide (POTP p449).]
>>
>>>> Why, finally, was Jarman kept in a bottle somewhere and added to the 5th-floor
>>>> story only after the fact? Because, I submit, it was uncertain whether he (and
>>>> apparently Norman) would need to be enlisted, and the fewer involved the better.
>>>> As it happened, Jarman was needed, to protect the solitary Williams. The latter
>>>> was initially thought to have been a shooter--by, first, Patrolman Leonard
>>>> Hill's 12:37 transmission witness, who said that the shots came from the "second
>>>> window from the end", upper right hand corner of the depository [Reason
>>>> #5]--Williams' window; and by, apparently, witness Amos Euins, who originally
>>>> told cops and reporters that the man with the rifle in the building was
>>>> "colored" [Reason #6]; and by, apparently, witness Howard Brennan. During the
>>>> course of his Commission testimony, Williams was asked by John McCloy, "When you
>>>> Brennan identify you downstairs? No one that you know... no one said, 'This is
>>>> the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
>>>> many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
>>>> too.]
>>
>>>> The mere supposed presence of Norman& Jarman worked to Williams' advantage--he
>>>> the man I have seen on the 5th floor window'?" (v3p183) [Reason #7] [As with
>>>> many of his strange statements for the FBI, Williams had to disavow these words,
>>>> too.]
>>
>>>> could be seen to be just another depository worker, and could have it overlooked
>>>> that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman&
>>>> Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
>>>> aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
>>>> belatedly, said that he heard rifle& bullet sounds from above, while Jarman
>>>> that he came to the depository about the same time Oswald did, while Norman&
>>>> Jarman were TSBD veterans. The "presence" (quotes intentional) of the two also
>>>> aided Williams by directing attention to the 6th floor. Norman, rather
>>>> said that he opened the far-west window facing Elm, after the trio supposedly
>>>> ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
>>>> stairwell was completely blocked by shelves& boxes. This is the period during
>>>> ran to the west side: "While they were at the west windows their view of the
>>>> which Oswald would have descended the stairs." (Warren Report p153)
>>
>>>> Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
>>>> the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
>>>> window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
>>>> Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
>>>> not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
>>>> available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
>>>> *west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
>>
>>>> dcw
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Donald Willis
>>
>>> Every time you throw another witness on the "conspiracy" pile you
>>> make your ideas less likely. By the time you get to fifty you will
>>> have ruled out conspiracy completely.
>>
>> CAN SOMEONE TRANSLATE THIS INTO A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE?
>>
>> BURGUNDY..
>
> Bob Novella said it better than I could...
>
> "When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for
> troublesome data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time
> for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood."
>
Occam's Razor does not apply to conspiracies or politics. Only math and
>>
>>>> Unfortunately for this fiction of "descending", a photo not made available to
>>>> the Commission proved Jarman's (and Williams') claim false--Moorman #3 shows the
>>>> window in question open as early as 12:26 (POTP p233) [Reason #8] I submit that
>>>> Jarman was finally shown not to have opened that 5th-floor window because he was
>>>> not, in fact, on the 5th floor at the time. And that another photo not
>>>> available to the Commission--the Powell slide-- showed the true story of the
>>>> *west* 5th-floor windows: only Williams seems to be there at 12:30....
>>
>>>> dcw
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Donald Willis
>>
>>> Every time you throw another witness on the "conspiracy" pile you
>>> make your ideas less likely. By the time you get to fifty you will
>>> have ruled out conspiracy completely.
>>
>> CAN SOMEONE TRANSLATE THIS INTO A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE?
>>
>> BURGUNDY..
>
> Bob Novella said it better than I could...
>
> "When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for
> troublesome data, a red flag should be raised indicating it is time
> for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood."
>
science.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 7, 2012, 3:13:39 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 8:32 AM, dklou...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 7:10 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 10:59 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about (hardly a first). First you
>>>> claimed I ignored the other points made in the OP. Then I pointed out
>>>> to you that every point made in the OP had to do with Jarman's
>>>> testimony and how it conflicted with other evidence. Now you are
>>>> whining that I ignored other pieces of evidence. No one is challenging
>>>> the other evidence. None of the other evidence mentioned conflicts
>>>> with the finding that Oswald was the shooter.
>>
>>> Yes, if Oswald fired from the "second window from the end" (12:37
>>> police-radio message). Yes, if Oswald was "colored" (Euins first
>>> reports).
>>> dcw
>>
>> Congratulations!!! You've just come up with more examples of erroneous
>> witness reports. Now if you could just come up with some hard evidence
>> that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime, you would have
>> something worth talking about.
>
> The hard evidence here is that both Euins& Sgt Harkness had to cover-
> On Jun 6, 6:41 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 7:10 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 10:59 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about (hardly a first). First you
>>>> claimed I ignored the other points made in the OP. Then I pointed out
>>>> to you that every point made in the OP had to do with Jarman's
>>>> testimony and how it conflicted with other evidence. Now you are
>>>> whining that I ignored other pieces of evidence. No one is challenging
>>>> the other evidence. None of the other evidence mentioned conflicts
>>>> with the finding that Oswald was the shooter.
>>
>>> Yes, if Oswald fired from the "second window from the end" (12:37
>>> police-radio message). Yes, if Oswald was "colored" (Euins first
>>> reports).
>>> dcw
>>
>> Congratulations!!! You've just come up with more examples of erroneous
>> witness reports. Now if you could just come up with some hard evidence
>> that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime, you would have
>> something worth talking about.
>
> up the nature of their initial exchange, whether or not it was based
> on erroneous info.... There's your conspiracy in miniature.
> dcw
>
The Euins family was threatened because he said the shooter was black.
> on erroneous info.... There's your conspiracy in miniature.
> dcw
>
bigdog
Jun 7, 2012, 5:38:55 PM6/7/12
to
Bud
Jun 7, 2012, 7:47:51 PM6/7/12
to
Bud
Jun 7, 2012, 7:48:02 PM6/7/12
to
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 8, 2012, 9:01:17 AM6/8/12
to
no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
dcw
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 8, 2012, 9:01:52 AM6/8/12
to
"parade"...?
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 8, 2012, 9:01:58 AM6/8/12
to
dcw
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 8, 2012, 9:02:14 AM6/8/12
to
On Jun 7, 12:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, I remember that passage from Mark Lane's book.
dcw
dcw
bigdog
Jun 8, 2012, 10:55:52 AM6/8/12
to
out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements. Do you think the fact a
witness did not accurately recall specific events or the sequence in which
they occurred is a reason to suspect a conspiracy? I'll say it once again.
All you have demonstrated is that there were witnesses who did not
accurately remember what happened. I don't think anyone on either side of
the conspiracy question would disagree with that assessment. What I am
trying to get you to explain is why these inaccuracies are indicative that
there was a conspiracy? Do you think the JFK assassination was unique in
that there were multiple witnesses who gave conflicting accounts of what
happened. In some instances, those accounts also conflicted with hard
physical evidence or with the filmed record of the event. I would find it
far more suspicious if everyone was telling the same story.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 8, 2012, 3:21:33 PM6/8/12
to
the WC did not properly evaluate witness testimony or misrepresented it.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 8, 2012, 3:23:08 PM6/8/12
to
to have thrown open the far-west window for all three on the 5th floor to
look out--at the same time, supposedly, a shooter was descending from the
6th floor. (See the Warren Report passage quoted in the initial post
here.) But photos released after (long after) the Commission broke up
show that he did not open that window, calling into question the story re
the three huddling at the far-west window as someone ran down from the 6th
floor.
But Jarman's 11/23/63 statement does not mention the 5th floor or shooting
or anything--except Williams down on the street, which he was not.
Jarman did not see or hear anything or open any window on the 5th
floor....
dcw
bigdog
Jun 9, 2012, 12:19:37 AM6/9/12
to
shows these men were under the sniper's nest at the time of the shooting
and gave further support to the eyewitnesses who saw the rifleman directly
above them.
> --it was he who was supposed
> to have thrown open the far-west window for all three on the 5th floor to
> look out--at the same time, supposedly, a shooter was descending from the
> 6th floor. (See the Warren Report passage quoted in the initial post
> here.) But photos released after (long after) the Commission broke up
> show that he did not open that window, calling into question the story re
> the three huddling at the far-west window as someone ran down from the 6th
> floor.
>
> But Jarman's 11/23/63 statement does not mention the 5th floor or shooting
> or anything--except Williams down on the street, which he was not.
> Jarman did not see or hear anything or open any window on the 5th
> floor....
>
affidavit doesn't mean he didn't hear the shots. Here is what he told
the WC under questioning:
(quote on)
The CHAIRMAN - When did you first come to the conclusion that any of
the shots came from up above you?
Mr. JARMAN - After we had ran down to this last window on the west
side of the building, and we was discussing it. And then after I got
to thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought
about that, also. And so I told Hank, I say, "That shot probably did
come from upstairs, up over us," and Hank said, "I know it did,
because I could hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the
cartridges drop on the floor."
And I told him there we better get the hell from up here.
(quote off)
Different questions will yield different answers. Go figure. If you look
at the affidavits and the WC testimony of the three men, there is no doubt
they heard shots coming from above them. Are you going to deny that all
three men were at the southeast corner windows at the time of the
shooting? Are you going to claim they lied about hearing the shots from
above them? That is what their statements and testimony indicate. The rest
is just your attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 9, 2012, 1:01:40 AM6/9/12
to
On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > dcw
>
> > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > dcw
>
> I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
This is beyond "inaccuracies". Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > dcw
>
> > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > dcw
>
> I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
that a "parade" was scheduled....
dcw
bigdog
Jun 9, 2012, 10:05:20 AM6/9/12
to
inaccurate. Do you know the context under which Jarman made this
statement? Do you know the questions he was asked and what facts he was
asked to establish? I don't think anyone needed Jarman to tell them there
had been assassination. I'm guessing everyone knew that by then. The
statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
Oswald with the group that went out front and that he was not with them on
the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
Williams and Norman. And from this simple statement, your imagination
conjures up all sorts of sinister speculations.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 9, 2012, 8:23:57 PM6/9/12
to
were and could have heard the rifle. Funny how they never smelled any
gunpowder. Maybe the wind was blowing UP the face of the TSBD. The triple
underpass may have acted like a funnel.
Bud
Jun 9, 2012, 8:28:13 PM6/9/12
to
seansmil...@gmail.com
Jun 9, 2012, 8:40:17 PM6/9/12
to
dcw
> > --it was he who was supposed
> > to have thrown open the far-west window for all three on the 5th floor to
> > look out--at the same time, supposedly, a shooter was descending from the
> > 6th floor. (See the Warren Report passage quoted in the initial post
> > here.) But photos released after (long after) the Commission broke up
> > show that he did not open that window, calling into question the story re
> > the three huddling at the far-west window as someone ran down from the 6th
> > floor.
> >
> > But Jarman's 11/23/63 statement does not mention the 5th floor or shooting
> > or anything--except Williams down on the street, which he was not.
> > Jarman did not see or hear anything or open any window on the 5th
> > floor....
> >
>
> The fact that he doesn't specifically mention the shooting in his
> affidavit doesn't mean he didn't hear the shots.
And it doesn't mean that he did hear the shots.
> > to have thrown open the far-west window for all three on the 5th floor to
> > look out--at the same time, supposedly, a shooter was descending from the
> > 6th floor. (See the Warren Report passage quoted in the initial post
> > here.) But photos released after (long after) the Commission broke up
> > show that he did not open that window, calling into question the story re
> > the three huddling at the far-west window as someone ran down from the 6th
> > floor.
> >
> > But Jarman's 11/23/63 statement does not mention the 5th floor or shooting
> > or anything--except Williams down on the street, which he was not.
> > Jarman did not see or hear anything or open any window on the 5th
> > floor....
> >
>
> The fact that he doesn't specifically mention the shooting in his
> affidavit doesn't mean he didn't hear the shots.
Here is what he told
> the WC under questioning:
>
> (quote on)
> The CHAIRMAN - When did you first come to the conclusion that any of
> the shots came from up above you?
> Mr. JARMAN - After we had ran down to this last window on the west
> side of the building, and we was discussing it. And then after I got
> to thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought
> about that, also. And so I told Hank, I say, "That shot probably did
> come from upstairs, up over us," and Hank said, "I know it did,
> because I could hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the
> cartridges drop on the floor."
> And I told him there we better get the hell from up here.
> (quote off)
west end? He testifies (as does WIlliams) that *he* opened that west-end
window on Elm. He did not. Moorman #3 shows that window open by about
12:26. So much for *verification* of the run to the west end....
>
> Different questions will yield different answers. Go figure. If you look
> at the affidavits and the WC testimony of the three men, there is no doubt
> they heard shots coming from above them. Are you going to deny that all
> three men were at the southeast corner windows at the time of the
> shooting? Are you going to claim they lied about hearing the shots from
> above them? That is what their statements and testimony indicate. The rest
> is just your attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 10, 2012, 8:33:42 AM6/10/12
to
animal quite different from "mistaken"....
dcw
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 10, 2012, 8:33:49 AM6/10/12
to
On Jun 9, 7:05 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > > > dcw
>
> > > > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > > > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > > > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > > > dcw
>
> > > I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> > > out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
>
> > This is beyond "inaccuracies". Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> > statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
> > that a "parade" was scheduled....
> > dcw
>
> The statement makes several references to LHO so your statement is
> inaccurate.
I said "afternoon", which usually means "after noon", not morning, or
> On Jun 9, 1:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > > > dcw
>
> > > > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > > > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > > > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > > > dcw
>
> > > I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> > > out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
>
> > This is beyond "inaccuracies". Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> > statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
> > that a "parade" was scheduled....
> > dcw
>
> The statement makes several references to LHO so your statement is
> inaccurate.
"before noon".
Do you know the context under which Jarman made this
> statement? Do you know the questions he was asked and what facts he was
> asked to establish? I don't think anyone needed Jarman to tell them there
> had been assassination. I'm guessing everyone knew that by then.
The
> statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
> whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
> indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
> Oswald with the group that went out front and
certainly indicated nothing about the fifth floor, which he did not
mention!
that he was not with them on
> the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> Williams and Norman.
cast. Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
testimony.
bigdog
Jun 10, 2012, 8:35:31 AM6/10/12
to
is quite understandable that Jarman wouldn't remember whether he
actually opened the window himself or simply looked out a window that
was already open. And what is the consequence of that error? Nothing
Jarman saw or heard after going to that window was of any importance.
The only thing the statements made by Jarman, Williams, and Norman
give us is that collectively they are one more indication of where the
shots were fired, directly above them. They are not a terribly
important piece of the puzzle. The case against Oswald does not hinge
on their testimony. It would still be compelling even if these three
men had decided to stay at street level to watch the "parade".
>
>
> > Different questions will yield different answers. Go figure. If you look
> > at the affidavits and the WC testimony of the three men, there is no doubt
> > they heard shots coming from above them. Are you going to deny that all
> > three men were at the southeast corner windows at the time of the
> > shooting? Are you going to claim they lied about hearing the shots from
> > above them? That is what their statements and testimony indicate. The rest
> > is just your attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
>
> I'm going to deny that *Jarman* was in that SE corner....
Even though the Dillard photo says otherwise.
>
> > Different questions will yield different answers. Go figure. If you look
> > at the affidavits and the WC testimony of the three men, there is no doubt
> > they heard shots coming from above them. Are you going to deny that all
> > three men were at the southeast corner windows at the time of the
> > shooting? Are you going to claim they lied about hearing the shots from
> > above them? That is what their statements and testimony indicate. The rest
> > is just your attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
>
> I'm going to deny that *Jarman* was in that SE corner....
bigdog
Jun 10, 2012, 11:36:13 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 10, 8:33 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:05 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > > > > dcw
>
> > > > > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > > > > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > > > > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > > > > dcw
>
> > > > I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> > > > out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
>
> > > This is beyond "inaccuracies". Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> > > statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
> > > that a "parade" was scheduled....
> > > dcw
>
> > The statement makes several references to LHO so your statement is
> > inaccurate.
>
> I said "afternoon", which usually means "after noon", not morning, or
> "before noon".
>
If you want to get nitpicky, let's go all the way. Jarman said to the
> On Jun 9, 7:05 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > > > > dcw
>
> > > > > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?
>
> > > > > Closer reading would help here. In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > > > > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > > > > dcw
>
> > > > I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> > > > out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.
>
> > > This is beyond "inaccuracies". Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> > > statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
> > > that a "parade" was scheduled....
> > > dcw
>
> > The statement makes several references to LHO so your statement is
> > inaccurate.
>
> I said "afternoon", which usually means "after noon", not morning, or
> "before noon".
>
best of his knowledge, Oswald was not with them when they were
watching the parade. They were watching the parade "after noon".
> Do you know the context under which Jarman made this
>
> > statement? Do you know the questions he was asked and what facts he was
> > asked to establish? I don't think anyone needed Jarman to tell them there
> > had been assassination. I'm guessing everyone knew that by then.
>
> Except, it seems, Jarman!
>
that JFK had been assassinated? Really???
> The
>
> > statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
> > whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
> > indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
> > Oswald with the group that went out front and
>
> Okay so far, but now you're about to speculate. His statement
> certainly indicated nothing about the fifth floor, which he did not
> mention!
>
> that he was not with them on
>
> > the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> > Williams and Norman.
>
> Again, he has Williams out front, only. And he omits Norman from the
> cast. Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
> testimony.
>
whereabouts of Oswald, before and during the shooting. There was no need
for him to establish the whereabouts of Williams or Norman. They were in
the Dillard photo. You are trying to desperately to attach meaning to the
things Jarman didn't say. You want to take the illogical leap that Jarman
wasn't with Norman and Williams on the fifth floor simply because he
didn't mention that in his affidavit. All these blanks were filled in
during Jarman's WC testimony in response to specific questions.
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 11, 2012, 8:57:44 AM6/11/12
to
> > The
>
> > > statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
> > > whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
> > > indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
> > > Oswald with the group that went out front and
>
> > Okay so far, but now you're about to speculate. His statement
> > certainly indicated nothing about the fifth floor, which he did not
> > mention!
>
> So he left that part out. BFD.
was guessing (a) that Williams was out there, & (b) Oswald wasn't.
One for two on guesses....
dcw
>
> > that he was not with them on
>
> > > the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> > > Williams and Norman.
>
> > Again, he has Williams out front, only. And he omits Norman from the
> > cast. Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
> > testimony.
>
> Again this gets back to the context of the statement. The focus is on the
> whereabouts of Oswald, before and during the shooting. There was no need
> for him to establish the whereabouts of Williams or Norman. They were in
> the Dillard photo. You are trying to desperately to attach meaning to the
> things Jarman didn't say.
He said Williams was out front.
> > that he was not with them on
>
> > > the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> > > Williams and Norman.
>
> > Again, he has Williams out front, only. And he omits Norman from the
> > cast. Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
> > testimony.
>
> Again this gets back to the context of the statement. The focus is on the
> whereabouts of Oswald, before and during the shooting. There was no need
> for him to establish the whereabouts of Williams or Norman. They were in
> the Dillard photo. You are trying to desperately to attach meaning to the
> things Jarman didn't say.
You want to take the illogical leap that Jarman
> wasn't with Norman and Williams on the fifth floor simply because he
> didn't mention that in his affidavit. All these blanks were filled in
> during Jarman's WC testimony in response to specific questions.
that he was out front with Williams! And funny--according to Norman,
he & Jarman went out front together--Jarman did not go out with the
6th-floor workers. Again, Jarman's 11/23 statement matches no one....
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 11, 2012, 8:59:40 AM6/11/12
to
to corroborate the two were available in abundance for the WC to look
at, & (c) the photos which contradicted Jarman & Williams were not
available to anyone for decades--the uncropped Powell slide & Moorman
#3.
And what is the consequence of that error? Nothing
> Jarman saw or heard after going to that window was of any importance.
heard someone coming down the stairs from the 6th floor if they were
at that window which Jarman supposedly opened. The Warren Report
devoted a paragraph to this. Must have seemed of consequence to
someone on the WC....
bigdog
Jun 11, 2012, 11:46:13 PM6/11/12
to
order here.
> > > The
>
> > > > statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
> > > > whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
> > > > indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
> > > > Oswald with the group that went out front and
>
> > > Okay so far, but now you're about to speculate. His statement
> > > certainly indicated nothing about the fifth floor, which he did not
> > > mention!
>
> > So he left that part out. BFD.
>
> THe only part which he included was that there was a parade. And he
> was guessing (a) that Williams was out there, & (b) Oswald wasn't.
> One for two on guesses....
> dcw
>
>
>
> > > that he was not with them on
>
> > > > the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> > > > Williams and Norman.
>
> > > Again, he has Williams out front, only. And he omits Norman from the
> > > cast. Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
> > > testimony.
>
> > Again this gets back to the context of the statement. The focus is on the
> > whereabouts of Oswald, before and during the shooting. There was no need
> > for him to establish the whereabouts of Williams or Norman. They were in
> > the Dillard photo. You are trying to desperately to attach meaning to the
> > things Jarman didn't say.
>
> He said Williams was out front.
>
front before he and Norman went back up to the fifth floor. So what if he
thought that Williams was with them out front.
> You want to take the illogical leap that Jarman
>
> > wasn't with Norman and Williams on the fifth floor simply because he
> > didn't mention that in his affidavit. All these blanks were filled in
> > during Jarman's WC testimony in response to specific questions.
>
> Funny--Commission counsel had to correct Jarman when he reiterated
> that he was out front with Williams! And funny--according to Norman,
> he & Jarman went out front together--Jarman did not go out with the
> 6th-floor workers. Again, Jarman's 11/23 statement matches no one....
that is reason to suspect a conspiracy. Amazing.
bigdog
Jun 11, 2012, 11:46:42 PM6/11/12
to
the rest of us?
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 12, 2012, 9:06:27 AM6/12/12
to
dcw
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 12, 2012, 9:07:11 AM6/12/12
to
the three fifth-floor witnesses neither saw nor heard nor ran into a
sixth-floor sniper as he/she ran downstairs. Thus, they latched on to
their *run* to the west side, Jarman's (false) opening of the window,
& their looking out: "While they were at the west windows their view
of the stairwell was completely blocked by shelves & boxes. This is
the period during which Oswald would have descended the stairs".
(p153) Supposedly, Williams led the *run*--but look at the
(uncropped) Powell slide in "Pictures of the Pain": The far-west
window is already open, & Williams is still at the second window from
the end! He led no *run*; Jarman opened no window. There's no
*explanation* why they missed a 6th-floor shooter.... Gee, maybe there
was no 6th-floor shooter....
dcw
bigdog
Jun 12, 2012, 5:47:04 PM6/12/12
to
made no mention of it because it wasn't necessary. Everybody knew that.
His affidavit was primarily about when he did and did not see Oswald. It
is bad enough when you guys twist things witnesses say to give them a
whole new meaning. It becomes ridiculous when you try to give meaning to
things they didn't say. I can't think of anything more absurd than taking
the position that because Jarman didn't mention the assassination in his
affidavit, that is an indication he was unaware of it.
bigdog
Jun 12, 2012, 5:47:27 PM6/12/12
to
their view, there would have been absolutely no reason for any of them to
be looking toward the stairwell in the northwest corner of the building.
Their focus was on what was going on in the motorcade. After 48 years of
trying, is this really the best you can do to make the case for
conspiracy. I think it probably is.
Anthony Marsh
Jun 12, 2012, 6:05:53 PM6/12/12
to
>>> available to anyone for decades--the uncropped Powell slide& Moorman
>>> #3.
>>
>>> And what is the consequence of that error? Nothing
>>
>>>> Jarman saw or heard after going to that window was of any importance.
>>
>>> Clever. But the point was that the three would *not* have seen or
>>> heard someone coming down the stairs from the 6th floor if they were
>>> at that window which Jarman supposedly opened. The Warren Report
>>> devoted a paragraph to this. Must have seemed of consequence to
>>> someone on the WC....
>>
>> Would you like to take a stab at explaining the consequence of that to
>> the rest of us?
>
> The Warren Report authors seemed to think it had to be explained why
> the three fifth-floor witnesses neither saw nor heard nor ran into a
> sixth-floor sniper as he/she ran downstairs. Thus, they latched on to
> their *run* to the west side, Jarman's (false) opening of the window,
> & their looking out: "While they were at the west windows their view
> of the stairwell was completely blocked by shelves& boxes. This is
>>
>>> And what is the consequence of that error? Nothing
>>
>>>> Jarman saw or heard after going to that window was of any importance.
>>
>>> Clever. But the point was that the three would *not* have seen or
>>> heard someone coming down the stairs from the 6th floor if they were
>>> at that window which Jarman supposedly opened. The Warren Report
>>> devoted a paragraph to this. Must have seemed of consequence to
>>> someone on the WC....
>>
>> Would you like to take a stab at explaining the consequence of that to
>> the rest of us?
>
> The Warren Report authors seemed to think it had to be explained why
> the three fifth-floor witnesses neither saw nor heard nor ran into a
> sixth-floor sniper as he/she ran downstairs. Thus, they latched on to
> their *run* to the west side, Jarman's (false) opening of the window,
> & their looking out: "While they were at the west windows their view
> the period during which Oswald would have descended the stairs".
> (p153) Supposedly, Williams led the *run*--but look at the
> (uncropped) Powell slide in "Pictures of the Pain": The far-west
> window is already open,& Williams is still at the second window from
> (p153) Supposedly, Williams led the *run*--but look at the
> (uncropped) Powell slide in "Pictures of the Pain": The far-west
> the end! He led no *run*; Jarman opened no window. There's no
> *explanation* why they missed a 6th-floor shooter.... Gee, maybe there
> was no 6th-floor shooter....
> dcw
>
Maybe they WANTED to miss him because they were afraid.
> *explanation* why they missed a 6th-floor shooter.... Gee, maybe there
> was no 6th-floor shooter....
> dcw
>
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 13, 2012, 9:14:00 AM6/13/12
to
dcw
dklou...@comcast.net
Jun 13, 2012, 9:14:05 AM6/13/12
to
dcw
bigdog
Jun 13, 2012, 6:07:26 PM6/13/12
to
they attached to it. Jarman, Williams, and Norman did not see Oswald
coming down the stairwell in the northwest corner of the building and
there is no reason to think that they should have.
bigdog
Jun 13, 2012, 6:07:41 PM6/13/12
to
indicates they don't know it?
Bud
Jun 13, 2012, 10:12:31 PM6/13/12
to
0 new messages