> > On Oct 13, 10:59 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> On Oct 13, 11:27 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Oct 12, 9:10 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > > > On Oct 11, 10:45 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Oct 11, 11:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Oct 10, 4:15 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 9:03 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > This is similar to me.  I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for
> > > > > > > > > just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more
> > > > > > > > > than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from
> > > > > > > > > multiple directions.  I have been saying for years that it is less than
> > > > > > > > > 10%.  Only three or four posters here have disputed me in the slightest on
> > > > > > > > > that, yet all they ever do is just say I'm wrong, over and over and over,
> > > > > > > > > but they never make the slightest attempt to come within a million
> > > > > > > > > light-years of proving me to be wrong.  Some of them even stoop to
> > > > > > > > > claiming I said something I've never said, such as claiming that I even
> > > > > > > > > once said "exactly 10%" and ignoring the words "less than" that ALWAYS
> > > > > > > > > precede the percentage in my statements, or claiming the reverse, that I
> > > > > > > > > said "exactly 90%" for the witnesses who said the shots came from a single
> > > > > > > > > direction, while ignoring the words "more than" which almost always
> > > > > > > > > precede "90%" in all my statements about this.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > > > > First, most people wouldn't get involved with such a question.  What does
> > > > > > > > it prove?  Would it prove anything about a lone gunman or multiple
> > > > > > > > shooters?

> > > > > > >   It wouldn`t "prove" anything.

> > > > > > True.

> > > > >   So why set the bar where it can`t be reached?

> > > > I didn't set it.

> > >   Yah, you did. You introduced "prove", as though if it couldn`t prove
> > > something (a very tough goal to shoot for) than it wasn`t meaningful.

> > Reading comprehension is mandantory.  If one can't prove what they
> > might assert is meaningful, it would be utterly useless.

>   Wrong. It might not in and of itself prove something, but it can be
> indicative.

>   Yes, the wrong approach. I`m trying to teach you the right approach.

> > >   How could it not be useful to determine what the evidence indicates?

> > Do you even know what he asserted????  You seem to be lost.  He stated
> > that something like 90% of the witnesses didn't identify two different
> > locations for the source of their hearing shots.  Now if you think
> > that is relevant in proving something or adding value to solving
> > anything, please let us know, ok?

>   You really need me to explain to you that an overwhelming majority
> of witnesses indicating a singular shooting location indicates a
> singular origin for the shots?

> > > > > > > location/direction.

> > > > > > It may, but it might also suggest different spots as their answers are
> > > > > > sometimes too general possibly to indicate a precise spot.  Like I said
> > > > > > the TSBD could be the west window or the east window, and it's also close
> > > > > > to the Dal-Tex bulding or the part of the GK closeer to the TSBD.  SO, it
> > > > > > in essence is chasing after tohe wind, with is the gist of my contention
> > > > > > for bringing up the topic.

> > > > >   The sound of where people thought the shots originated from is more
> > > > > often seen as significant by CTers, who have so little they must grasp
> > > > > at such things.

> > > > it should be significant if a person was just starting to look at the case
> > > > for the first time.  Why wouldn't anyone think that where the shots might
> > > > have origniated from think it was unsignificant??

> > >   But see, you aren`t getting where the shots originated from from the
> > > witnesses. You are getting the impression from the witnesses where the
> > > sound of the shots came from.

> > Well the quality of their listening is something a court would decide,
> > wouldn't it?

>   Why are you still scratching around for ways to rehabilitate this
> evidence after I`ve explained to you that it is mush?

>   They asked because some were right. Their impressions were borne out
> by the physical evidence.

> > > > > > >   It means from where the person was to where the person thought the
> > > > > > > sound came from.

> > > > > > > >  You mean from one building or next
> > > > > > > > to the building?

> > > > > > >   Many indicated a particular building.

> > > > > > See above

> > > > > > > >  How about within one building but different places?
> > > > > > > > Now a real question is, why didn't they ask questions about the sounding
> > > > > > > > of the shots?  Jean Hill offered that the shots she heard sounded like it
> > > > > > > > came from two different weapons.

> > > > > > >   Echoes sound different than the shot.

> > > > > > IF they do, are they part of the shot that people are describing?  Is an
> > > > > > echo different than say a backfire?  Is a backfire a shot, or were they
> > > > > > from vehicles at the time of the shooting?  What about 'firecrackers'?
> > > > > > Are they shots, backfires, echos, or real firecrackers?  They were
> > > > > > described a lot.

> > > > >   Possibly when someone hears a loud report from an unknown source
> > > > > that their mind goes to familiar similar sounds, like backfires and
> > > > > firecrackers.

> > > > So where are you going to try to fit this in, in your grand scheme of
> > > > things??

> > >   I don`t need to, the evidence is clear that the impressions of where
> > > the shots came from as indicated by many of the witnesses was
> > > erroneous. Like I said, this is something that CTers have been trying
> > > to wring some support for conspiracy from.

> > Why is it necessarily erroneous?

>   Because it isn`t unanmous. One thing happened, differing accounts of
> what happened exist so some *must* be wrong.

>   No, it`s a fact. Some of the witness *must* be wrong. In this case
> it is simple to determine which ones were. Just not by you.

> > > > > > >  Why would such a question be necessary?

> > > > > > Because more penetrating questions may have ensued, and possible more
> > > > > > firing experts could come in and way in on what distinguishes sound in
> > > > > > shots.

> > > > >   You are trying to firm up mush. It would still be mush.

> > > > You must be afraid of them coming up with stuff that would go against
> > > > a one spot, one direction, one gunman theory is all I can think of.

> > >   That doesn`t surprise me that that is all you can think of.

> > It's just merely hypothetical.  Is there anything that makes that
> > theory bona fide?

>   The fact that it is backed up by facts.

> > >   Why are you afraid of assessing information realistically? If it is
> > > mush, why pretend it can become firm? No matter how you approach it or
> > > how you frame the questions it is still just the impressions of the
> > > witnesses of where the invisible sound waves (sound waves that bounce
> > > off things) came from.

> > Are you saying witnesses are wrong because of some wayout bounce
> > theory?

>   Are you incapable of understanding what I did say?

>   You really are afraid to assess witness supplied information
> realistically, aren`t you? Puts a damper on the silly game.

> > What does soft and hard surfaces have anything to do with anything?

>   You are showing your ignorance of how sound operates. Soft surfaces
> absorb sound, hard surfaces reflect it. How can you come to any understand
> of the information the earwitnesses provided without the most basic
> understanding of how sound operates?

> > > > > > >   Of course not. When a witness offers what something sound like, or
> > > > > > > where they think a sound originated from they are not offering facts,
> > > > > > > only impressions and opinions.

> > > > > > Yes, but if enough were asked and they came up with different sounds
> > > > > > for shots on a more regular basis, wouldn't you think conclusions
> > > > > > could possibly be made?

> > > > >   Little could be established regardless of the approach. You are trying
> > > > > to mine gold from doody. Look, if you hear a loud noise behind you, say a
> > > > > loud trash truck bang, and you look over your left shoulder and see
> > > > > nothing, but then see a trash truck on your right hand side, which do you
> > > > > think is more accurate, your sight or your impression of where the noise
> > > > > originated from? Sound is invisible. Sound bounces. Sound goes forward in
> > > > > a cone, people out of the cone hear it different than those inside. Where
> > > > > a shooter was *seen* and where evidence of a shooting took place was found
> > > > > is way better then where people *think* the sound of the shots came from.

> > > > So when there is a shooting, no sound should ever be part of any
> > > > investigative discussion by those wanting a court system to decide the
> > > > fate of anyone?

> > >   It`s mush, of very little evidential value. If sound makes someone
> > > look in the right direction and they see something of significance
> > > then the sound helped the person locate the source.

> > Say there was a bank robbery with a few people doing the heist.  More
> > than one robber was shooting inside the bank.  Do you think that the
> > witnesses would be of value if called on to identify the source of the
> > shots, say if they were even on the ground?

>   Thats a stupid analogy, they would see and know where the robbers doing
> the shooting were. But if they said it sounded to them that the shooting

> > I'm not sure how this would relate.

>   I didn`t expect you would, it really wasn`t aimed at you, my target
> audience is thinking people.

>    By close do you mean proximity or as pertaining to a relationship?

> > > > > > >   Aren`t you likely to dismiss any information that supports a three
> > > > > > > shot theory?

> > > > > > Not necessarily as i wouldn't dismss the people that heard 2 shots because
> > > > > > maybe that's all they heard, or they weren't capable of picking up lesser
> > > > > > sounding fire that some others might have been able to pick out.  And how
> > > > > > would one know that 3 bigger sounding shots might have been a plan for the
> > > > > > shooting teams say to use so the lesser fired weapons wouldn't be picked
> > > > > > up?  Or even silencers.

> > > > >   Consult Occam, no silencers are needed to explain what occurred.

> > > > Weapons don't care about Occam.  What about the people who died by the
> > > > hands of silencers?  You think the relatives are going to pat Mr. Occam on
> > > > the back?

> > >   You are imagining silencers because your ideas require them. But
> > > this event does not require them.

> > I don't have to imagine.  They are a bona fide way of shooting
> > bullets.

>   So is a blunderbuss.

>   As I said, your evidence for silencers is that your ideas require
> them.

> > > > > > >   Speaker wasn`t even in Dealey Plaza.> when they did
> > > > > > > > have a lot of gun experience?  Enough. My two cents.

> > > > > > I believe if correct he was just arriving which was close enough for him
> > > > > > to make his strong opinion made.

> > > > >   Nearly 200 people actually in Dealey, whats one more opinion more or
> > > > > less?

> > > > Well there were two major sources for where the shooting directions
> > > > occurred at Dealey.  That is entrenched in testimony.  Maybe the people
> > > > who were between the two spots

> > >   There were witnesses between the TSBD and the grassy knoll, but you
> > > can`t show that Speaker was one of them.

> > No, as he was a half a block away.  That's not too far.  And can you
> > say that he was not in between?

>   In order for him to be between the grassy knoll and the TSBD he
> would need to be in Dealey Plaza.

> > >   You have no idea how adept Speaker is/was at determining the
> > > direction of shots.

> > He said he was a combat Marine veteran of WWII, and that he knows what
> > he was talking about, that there were not 3 shots fired, but more.
> > See pg. 126.

>   Can you show that a person with Speaker`s credentials is more adept
> at counting shots than someone who has never served in the military?

> > CJ> CJ