The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillard Photos

[dcwillis]

The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards

1) All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window

2) What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
the "second window from the end"?

3) Most likely explanation:

a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
corner")

b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo

c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor

4) Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?

5) Because, obviously: There was no one in that end window, after the
shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see

6) Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
5th floor

1.1) Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
witness

1.2) Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
look a good fit

a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window

b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
it--the second window from the end!

c) Jackson testfied that he did not see the man who held the rifle, but
a police report from a Sgt. Jennings said that Jackson saw both the
"rifle" and the "man" (v2 p159 & v19 p517, resp.)

d) Apparently Jackson, like the "second window" witness, saw the rifle,
looked away (perhaps to pick up his camera), then looked back, & saw the
only man visible in the upper floors (Jackson's 11/22/63 affidavit has yet
to surface)

1.1.1) Jackson then is our "second window" witness

1.1.2) And if he saw only one man in the upper right hand corner of the
depository, so too did the other camera car witnesses

1.1.3) Hence, the Dillard photographs showing two and three men there are
fraudulent

1.1.4) Hence, Jackson could not admit to being the "second window"
witness without exposing the fraud

1.1.5) Hence, fellow officer Clyde Haygood took Hill's place at the
hearings & played stupid (The Warren Report, to its credit, restored the
transmission to Hill)

1.1.6) Hence were both officer & witness removed from the 12:37
transmission

1.1.1.1) Williams put a face on the evidence directing all to the 6th
floor (Physical evidence & trajectories do not have faces, & the former
can be planted, & the latter are not precise--oh! the skepticism of the
masses)

1.1.1.2) Witness evidence from the street below was next-to-useless as to
the exact location of a shooter, since it was hard to count floors from
below

1.1.1.3) Norman & Jarman had to be pressed into service, belatedly, to
direct attention away from Williams & the "second window" transmission
(Jarman did not hop on board till Sunday, & Norman a day or two later)
(A passage in Williams' testimony suggests that he was stopped as he
exited the building & identified as the man "on the fifth floor")

1.1.1.1.1) In sum, the "second window from the end" transmission exposes
the Dillard photos as frauds, an attempt to protect Williams, & the
conspiracy as a whole

dcw

[John Fiorentino]

"What?"


John F.



"dcwillis" <seansmil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb59087c-7358-414c...@googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

This type of crap only demonstrates the lengths that a person like
Donald C. Willis is willing to go to in order to take that gun out of
Oswald's hands. It's truly pathetic, and always has been.

Willis has it down to a science now. And Willis' fixation on the TSBD
floors and on Norman/Williams/Jarman could be appropriately called
"MICRO-ANALYZING MUSH".

And yet Willis is happy and eager to label his mush as "FACT".

For those who don't know it -- Willis has previously claimed that TSBD
worker Danny Arce was the person who killed JFK.

As I said --- pathetic.

[dcwillis]

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:06:28 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> This type of crap only demonstrates the lengths that a person like
>
> Donald C. Willis is willing to go to in order to take that gun out of
>
> Oswald's hands. It's truly pathetic, and always has been.
>
>
>
> Willis has it down to a science now. And Willis' fixation on the TSBD
>
> floors and on Norman/Williams/Jarman could be appropriately called
>
> "MICRO-ANALYZING MUSH".
>
>
>
> And yet Willis is happy and eager to label his mush as "FACT".
>

??? "Label"? I did not use the word "fact". However, FACT: DVP seems to be runnin' scared. And the scareder he is, the shriller he is. (See above & below.)

>
> For those who don't know it -- Willis has previously claimed that TSBD
>
> worker Danny Arce was the person who killed JFK.
>

I still occasionally entertain that idea. I believe that you, DVP, claim that TSBD worker Lee Oswald was the person who killed JFK....
dcs

[curtjester1]

See how a scenario turns into X-ray Vision?! <---- LNT'er type
investigative tool thinking).

CJ

[Bud]

On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
> the "second window from the end"?

"How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"

> 3)  Most likely explanation:

The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
police misunderstood, ect.

>   a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
> corner")

Is a general vicinity in the building.

>   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
>   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
> Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
> shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
> 5th floor

No one had a gun on the 5th floor.

> 1.1)  Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
> witness
>
> 1.2)  Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
> look a good fit
>
>   a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window

He said "halfway". And he said there were black men under the
window.

>   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
> window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
> it--the second window from the end!

Nonsense.

>   c) Jackson testfied that he did not see the man who held the rifle, but
> a police report from a Sgt. Jennings said that Jackson saw both the
> "rifle" and the "man" (v2 p159 & v19 p517, resp.)
>
>   d) Apparently Jackson, like the "second window" witness, saw the rifle,
> looked away (perhaps to pick up his camera), then looked back, & saw the
> only man visible in the upper floors (Jackson's 11/22/63 affidavit has yet
> to surface)
>
> 1.1.1)  Jackson then is our "second window" witness
>
> 1.1.2)  And if he saw only one man in the upper right hand corner of the
> depository, so too did the other camera car witnesses
>
> 1.1.3)  Hence, the Dillard photographs showing two and three men there are
> fraudulent

TA-DAH! dw has explained away the evidence that is harmful to his ideas.
His ideas now overrule everything, as far as he is concerned. This is one
successful hobbyist, like Harris and Cinque he has arranged information
into a form he finds most pleasing. When they all die nothing will be
changed or even impacted by their ideas, but they enjoyed playing the
game.

[David Von Pein]

DON WILLIS SAID:

I believe that you, DVP, claim that TSBD worker Lee Oswald was the
person who killed JFK.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well...Duh!

Yeah, I have claimed that....and so did the WC...and the HSCA...and
everyone else with good sense.

You're not going to now make the absurd claim that an LNer saying that
"TSBD worker" Lee Oswald was JFK's killer is even remotely the same
(evidence-wise) as saying that "TSBD worker" Danny Arce was the
killer....are you, Donald? You're not REALLY going to go down that
road--are you?

(Gosh, between Cinque & Willis these days, this forum resembles a
Barnum & Bailey three-ring circus. But, man, it's fun to watch these
clowns try to juggle those milk bottles.)

[dcwillis]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:17:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> >
>
> > 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> >
>
> > 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
>
> > the "second window from the end"?
>
>
>
> "How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"
>

So, you're saying Williams was the shooter, no explanation needed?

>
> > 3)  Most likely explanation:
>
>
>
> The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
>
> police misunderstood, ect.
>

Hill was very precise.

>
> >   a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
>
> > corner")
>
>
>
> Is a general vicinity in the building.
>

But he adds "second window from the end". Not general....

>
> >   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
> >
>
> >   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
>
> > Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> >
>
> > 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> >
>
> > 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
>
> > shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> >
>
> > 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
>
> > 5th floor
>
>
>
> No one had a gun on the 5th floor.
>

Okay, you're saying he saw his "colored man" with a gun on the *6th* floor, eh?

>
> > 1.1)  Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
>
> > witness
>
> >
>
> > 1.2)  Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
>
> > look a good fit
>
> >
>
> >   a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window
>
>
>
> He said "halfway". And he said there were black men under the
>
> window.
>

Read the testimony more closely, Bud. The windows opened "halfway" at the
most. But the "sniper's nest" window at the east end was open only a
quarter way then.

Jackson: "halfway"

Specter: "Indicating a window on the 6th floor of the WESTERNMOST portion
of the building open halfway as you have described it".

Check photos of that westernmost window. They're open all the way. They
couldn't be opened any further. The "nest" window is not all the way
open.

>
> >   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
>
> > window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
>
> > it--the second window from the end!
>
>
>
> Nonsense.
>

No, Bud--testimony. \

Specter: "You have marked the window on the sixth floor with the mark
being placed on the window on the WESTERN half of the first double
window"--i.e., the second window from the end. Sense. Actual
comprehension of testimony....

>
> >   c) Jackson testfied that he did not see the man who held the rifle, but
>
> > a police report from a Sgt. Jennings said that Jackson saw both the
>
> > "rifle" and the "man" (v2 p159 & v19 p517, resp.)
>
> >
>
> >   d) Apparently Jackson, like the "second window" witness, saw the rifle,
>
> > looked away (perhaps to pick up his camera), then looked back, & saw the
>
> > only man visible in the upper floors (Jackson's 11/22/63 affidavit has yet
>
> > to surface)
>
> >
>
> > 1.1.1)  Jackson then is our "second window" witness
>
> >
>
> > 1.1.2)  And if he saw only one man in the upper right hand corner of the
>
> > depository, so too did the other camera car witnesses
>
> >
>
> > 1.1.3)  Hence, the Dillard photographs showing two and three men there are
>
> > fraudulent
>
>
>
> TA-DAH! dw has explained away the evidence that is harmful to his ideas.
>
> His ideas now overrule everything, as far as he is concerned.

They are Jackson's & Hill's "ideas". And your misinterpretations of what
they said....

This is one
>
> successful hobbyist, like Harris and Cinque he has arranged information
>
> into a form he finds most pleasing. When they all die nothing will be
>
> changed or even impacted by their ideas, but they enjoyed playing the
>
> game.
>

>CUT

[dcwillis]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:13:26 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> DON WILLIS SAID:
>
>
>
> I believe that you, DVP, claim that TSBD worker Lee Oswald was the
>
> person who killed JFK.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
>
> Well...Duh!
>
>
>
> Yeah, I have claimed that....and so did the WC...and the HSCA...and
>
> everyone else with good sense.
>
>
>
> You're not going to now make the absurd claim that an LNer saying that
>
> "TSBD worker" Lee Oswald was JFK's killer is even remotely the same
>
> (evidence-wise) as saying that "TSBD worker" Danny Arce was the
>
> killer....are you, Donald? You're not REALLY going to go down that
>
> road--are you?
>

Just saying that we're both talking about TSBD workers.... And there's
evidence & there's evidence....

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:

It was more than likely Haygood. Compare his testimony to the call:

-- quote --
Mr. HAYGOOD. And I asked him about where the shots came from, and he
stated that he didn't know, that he was looking at him when the first
shot was fired, and that he slumped. And when the second shot was
fired, he went completely out of sight.
Mr. BELIN. You talked to any other witnesses there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. There was another one came up who was located, at
the time he stated, on the south side of Elm Street back toward the
triple underpass. Back, well, it would be north of the underpass
there, and said he had gotten hit by a piece of concrete or something,
and he did have a slight cut on his right cheek, upper portion of his
cheek just to the right of his nose.
Mr. BELIN. Would he have been to the front or to the back of the
Presidential car at the time of the shot?
Mr. HAYGOOD. I don't know what you mean to the front or the back.
Mr. BELIN. When he was standing, was he to the west or to the east of
the President's car at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HAYGOOD. He would be to the south of it and then west.
Mr. BELIN. Southwest of it?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Talk to anyone else?
Mr. HAYGOOD. And at that time, approximately, well, I was talking to
him at the time this other man came up and told me that he didn't know
what it was about, but he was quite sure the shot had come from this
building there which he pointed out to be the Texas School Book
Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say why?
Mr. HAYGOOD. He said when the-first shot was fired he glanced back and
there was something in the building, he couldn't determine what it
was, but it was just something there that he couldn't explain, but he
was definite that the shots did come from there.
And after talking to him and the man that was on the other side that
complained he was hit by a piece of concrete from the ricochet at that
time, I called the dispatcher and asked for squads to cover the Texas
School Book Depository Building off.
-- unquote --
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/haygood.htm

Here's the call:
-- quote --
I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet
off the concrete and another one saw the President slump.
-- unquote --
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm

The wounded witness is James Tague of course, and the other witness is
Howard Brennan.

Note what he says - that he lost sight of the President because of the
intervening oblelisk (and if you've been in Dealey Plaza and stood
where Brennan was, you see the oblelisk does in fact block one's view
of the President as the car proceeds down Elm). This matches up with
what Haygood testified to, "And when the second shot was fired, he
[the President] went completely out of sight.":
-- quote --
Mr. DULLES. Could you see who or what he was aiming at? You testified
as to the declination of the rifle, the angle of the rifle. But could
you see what he was firing at?
Mr. BRENNAN. Subconsciously I knew what he was firing at. But
immediately I looked towards where President Kennedy's car should be,
and there was something obstructing my view. I could not see the
President or his car at that time.
And I still don't know what was obstructing my view, because I was
high enough that I should have been able to see it. I could not see
it.
-- unquote --

Oh yeah, one more thing:
Brennan saw more than one man on the fifth floor.
-- quote --
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window
that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor,
colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.
Mr. BELIN. Do you want to mark the window with the circle that you
believe you saw some Negro people on the fifth floor. Could you do
that with this marking pencil on Exhibit 477, please?
Mr. BRENNAN. The two that I identified, I believe, was in this
window.
-- unquote --

That "poof" you just heard was your entire conjecture (it's too
bizarre and lacking in evidence to be elevated to a theory) going up
in smoke.

Rifle smoke. From the sixth floor SE corner window.

Hank

>
> 1.1.6)  Hence were both officer & witness removed from the 12:37
> transmission
>
> 1.1.1.1)  Williams put a face on the evidence directing all to the 6th
> floor (Physical evidence & trajectories do not have faces, & the former
> can be planted, & the latter are not precise--oh! the skepticism of the
> masses)
>
> 1.1.1.2)  Witness evidence from the street below was next-to-useless as to
> the exact location of a shooter, since it was hard to count floors from
> below
>
> 1.1.1.3)  Norman & Jarman had to be pressed into service, belatedly, to
> direct attention away from Williams & the "second window" transmission
> (Jarman did not hop on board till Sunday, & Norman a day or two later)
>     (A passage in Williams' testimony suggests that he was stopped as he
> exited the building & identified as the man "on the fifth floor")

Yes, that happened as Howard Brennan recognized Williams.

-- quote --
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window
that I noticed.
There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor,
colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.
Mr. BELIN. Do you want to mark the window with the circle that you
believe you saw some Negro people on the fifth floor. Could you do
that with this marking pencil on Exhibit 477, please?
Mr. BRENNAN. The two that I identified, I believe, was in this
window.
Mr. BELIN. You want to put a "B" on that one?
-- unquote --

-- quote --
Representative FORD. But you were standing on the steps of the Texas
School Book Depository Building talking to whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Mr. Sorrels and another man, and I believe there was an
officer standing there, a police officer.
Representative FORD. And these two Negroes came out of the front
door?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. And you did what then?
Mr. BRENNAN. I---
Representative FORD. Spoke to Mr. Sorrels?
Mr. BRENNAN. Spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were the
two colored boys that was on the fifth floor, or on the next floor
underneath the man that fired the gun.
Representative FORD. You positively identified them?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did, at that time.
-- unquote --

Sorrels confirms this encounter entirely:
-- quote --
Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr.
Truly. He was standing there.
I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a
stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and
addresses of every employee of the building, in the building."
And I then walked on out the front door and asked, "Did anyone here
see anything?"
And someone pointed to Mr. Brennan.
Mr. STERN - What was your purpose in asking for a list of the
employees of the building?
Mr. SORRELS - Because I knew that they would have to be interviewed. I
was trying to establish at that time without any delay, who all was in
that building or was employed there, because I knew they would have to
be talked to later.
In other words, I was looking for someone that saw something.
Mr. STERN - You were looking for potential witnesses?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - And at that time you had no basis for suspecting any
employee might be involved one way or the other?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; and I did not know at that time that the shots
came from the building.
When I was--when Mr. Brennan was pointed out to me, I went up and told
him who I was and asked him if he saw anything. And he told me what he
had seen. And, at that time, that is the first time that I knew
definitely that any shots had come from the building.
Mr. STERN - Now, what precisely did Mr. Brennan tell you?
Mr. SORRELS - Mr. Brennan said that he was standing across the street,
watching the parade, and that he, of course, was looking in the
direction where the President was, and he heard a sound which he
thought at first was a backfire of an automobile. And that shortly
afterwards there was another sound, and that he thought that somebody
might be throwing firecrackers out of the building.
And he glanced up to the building, and that he saw a man at the window
on the right-hand side, the second floor from the top.
And he said, "I could see the man taking deliberate aim and saw him
fire the third shot," and said then he just pulled the rifle back in
and moved back from the window, just as unconcerned as could be.
Mr. STERN - How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there
anyone here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over
there."
He was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
Mr. STERN - Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked him whether or not he thought he could identify
the person that he saw, and he, of course, gave me a description of
him, said that he appeared to be a slender man, he had on what
appeared to be a light jacket or shirt or something to that effect,
and that he thought he could identify him--said he was slender build.
Because I was definitely interested in someone that had seen something
that could give us some definite information.
And I also asked if he had seen anybody else, and he pointed to a
young colored boy there, by the name of Euins. And I got him and Mr.
Brennan, and I took them over to the sheriff's office where we could
get statements from them.
Mr. STERN - What was the name of that young man?
Mr. SORRELS - Euins, I believe it is, or pretty close to that.
Mr. STERN - Did you interview Mr. Euins?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the
noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window
with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and
he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was
colored or white.
Mr. STERN - Do you remember anything unusual about the way Mr. Brennan
was dressed?
Mr. SORRELS - He was dressed as a workman, or a laborer, and he had on
a hard hat.
Mr. STERN - Construction hat?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else about anything else
he had observed at that time?
Mr. SORRELS - I can't recall any specific thing.
Mr. STERN - Did he mention seeing any other person or persons in the
windows of the Book Depository Building?
Mr. SORRELS - I don't recall whether he did or did not.
Mr. STERN - Did he say anything about observing anyone leave the Book
Depository Building hurriedly after the shooting?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir.
Mr. STERN - Did he point out to you precisely the window from which he
said he saw the shot fired, the window in which he saw the sniper?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - Where was that window in relation to the windows at which
you saw several Negro men as you drove on Houston Street?
Mr. SORRELS - It was one floor above and a little bit to the right, as
I recall it.
Mr. STERN - Can you give us these directions in terms of compass
points?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes. That would be on the east side of the building.
Mr. STERN - So the window that Mr. Brennan pointed out to you was on
the extreme east side?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - And the window or windows at which you had observed
several Negro men was more to the west?
Mr. SORRELS - A little bit more to the west--not very much--but to the
west, on the floor below.
Mr. STERN - Are you certain in your mind about the floor below?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, I am.
-- unquote --

>
> 1.1.1.1.1)  In sum, the "second window from the end" transmission exposes
> the Dillard photos as frauds, an attempt to protect Williams, & the
> conspiracy as a whole
>

No. Not at all. It exposes your claims as nonsense.

Respectfully,


Hank
> dcw
>
>

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's some imagination you got there.

"Second window from the end", could be read to mean "second window
from the top". i.e. not the top floor, but the second one down.

If so, that means that transmission puts the window in question as
"upper right hand corner" and "second window from the top". i.e. the
sixth floor southeast corner window (since the top floor was the
seventh floor, and the second one from the top was the sixth).

More than likely, the witness in question was Howard Brennan. Note
that Brennan did not say he saw a shooter on the sixth floor - he told
the officer he spoke to, that he saw the gunman in "one window from
the top", which would again mean the sixth floor, if one were counting
down (the top window would be the seventh floor, and one window from
the top would be the sixth floor).

-- quote --
Mr. BRENNAN. I asked him to get me someone in charge, a Secret Service
man or an FBI. That it appeared to me that they were searching in the
wrong direction for the man that did the shooting.
And he was definitely in the building on the sixth floor.
I did not say on the sixth floor. Correction there.
I believe I identified the window as one window from the top.
-- unquote --

Others counted up from the bottom visible window (the first floor
windows were covered with a facade and thus the first visible windows
to spectators in the street were actually the second floor windows,
and arrived at the fifth floor, as in this transmission at 12:36: "I
have a witness that says that it came from the 5th floor of the Texas
Book Depository Store."

Elsewhere the second floor "from the top" got garbled somewhere along
the line and the police officer called this in: "We have a man here
who says he saw him pull the weapon back through the window off of the
second floor from the southeast corner of that depository building".
Based on the evidence we have, no one saw a shooter on the second
floor, and therefore it's quite likely and plausible the witness
actually told the officer "second floor from the top" and the officer
either misheard it, misunderstood it, or simply misspoke when calling
it in.

So we have mentions of "second window from the end", "fifth floor" and
"second floor". Only one common location fits all three, if you
understand how things can get screwed up in communication - the sixth
floor SE corner window.

Go ahead, continue misconscrewing everything up so as to build up a
conspiracy that didn't exist. The "second window from the end" is
realistically synonymous with "one window from the top", and both
denote the sixth floor.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 30, 10:58 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:13:26 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > DON WILLIS SAID:
>
> > I believe that you, DVP, claim that TSBD worker Lee Oswald was the
>
> > person who killed JFK.
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > Well...Duh!
>
> > Yeah, I have claimed that....and so did the WC...and the HSCA...and
>
> > everyone else with good sense.
>
> > You're not going to now make the absurd claim that an LNer saying that
>
> > "TSBD worker" Lee Oswald was JFK's killer is even remotely the same
>
> > (evidence-wise) as saying that "TSBD worker" Danny Arce was the
>
> > killer....are you, Donald? You're not REALLY going to go down that
>
> > road--are you?
>
> Just saying that we're both talking about TSBD workers.... And there's
> evidence & there's evidence....

No, there's evidence and then there's conjecture and fanciful thinking
masquerading as evidence.

The evidence indicts Oswald. It points nowhere near Lovelady, Arce,
Truly, Bonnie Ray Williams, or anyone else.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You seem to have left out some important information in your rush to
judgment:
-- quote --
Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show
that you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking
being placed on the window on the westerly half of the first double
window.
Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the
window where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double -
actually this is the rifle window right here.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you take the black pencil again and draw an arrow -
before you start to mark, hear the rest of the question - as precisely
as you can to the exact spot where you saw what you have described as
the rifle.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. SPECTER - Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
Mr. SPECTER - Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
Mr. JACKSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best recollection as to how far open it was
at that time?
Mr. JACKSON - I would say that it was open like that window there,
halfway.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
westernmost portion of the building open halfway as you described it.
My last comment, as to the description of your last window, is only
for the purpose of what you have said in identifying a window to show
how far open the window was.
-- unquote --

Now, what window did Jackson mark? No need to question it, it's right
here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm

He marked the right-most (from the street) window of the sixth floor.


And Jackson said the building hid the man from his view:
Mr. SPECTER - Whether or not you could identify anyone, could you see
even the form or outline of the man?
Mr. JACKSON - No, sir. It looked to me like the man was over to the
side of the window because the rifle was at quite an angle to me.
Mr. SPECTER - Which side of the window?
Mr. JACKSON - Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the
corner of the building, the east. It would be to the right of the
window from my view.
Mr. SPECTER - Which direction was the rifle pointing?
Mr. JACKSON - West. To my left.
-- unquote --

That would not be true if the shooter was shooting out the second
window in the southeast corner on the sixth floor. Shooting out the
second window would leave the shooter in sunlight.

And the second (the western one of the SE corner pair) window was
closed in any case.
And the fifth floor window was open fully, the sixth floor window was
opened only halfway (half of the maximum it could be opened).
Your argument depends entirely on disregarding what "halfway" means
and substituting your own definition).

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4999183978596678&pid=15.1

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

It was not Haygood. As recorded on the radio log, Haygood's call number
was 142. (CE 1974 p165). Hill's number was 22 & that is the number the
officer gave on the radio logs for the 12:37 message, & the number
recorded on the transcription (CE 1974 p166). Haygood could appropriate
Hill's words at the hearings, but he couldn't steal his call #....

[Anthony Marsh]

HE? Do you mean Brennan?
If you mean Brennan the obelisk [sic], your word not his and doubt any
spectator would know what the correct name was, was BEHIND Brennan and
to his south.

> intervening oblelisk (and if you've been in Dealey Plaza and stood
> where Brennan was, you see the oblelisk does in fact block one's view

Brennan was not standing. Brennan was sitting on the wall above the
reflecting pool, looking the wrong way.
The Obelisk NEVER Blocks a view down Elm Street.

> of the President as the car proceeds down Elm). This matches up with
> what Haygood testified to, "And when the second shot was fired, he
> [the President] went completely out of sight.":
> -- quote --
> Mr. DULLES. Could you see who or what he was aiming at? You testified
> as to the declination of the rifle, the angle of the rifle. But could
> you see what he was firing at?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Subconsciously I knew what he was firing at. But
> immediately I looked towards where President Kennedy's car should be,
> and there was something obstructing my view. I could not see the
> President or his car at that time.

Yeah, column B. Not an obelisk.

> And I still don't know what was obstructing my view, because I was
> high enough that I should have been able to see it. I could not see
> it.
> -- unquote --
>
> Oh yeah, one more thing:
> Brennan saw more than one man on the fifth floor.
> -- quote --
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
> can recollect?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Not on that floor.
> There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window
> that I noticed.
> There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor,
> colored guys. In particular, I only remember two that I identified.
> Mr. BELIN. Do you want to mark the window with the circle that you
> believe you saw some Negro people on the fifth floor. Could you do
> that with this marking pencil on Exhibit 477, please?
> Mr. BRENNAN. The two that I identified, I believe, was in this
> window.
> -- unquote --
>

Yes, the two was, both in that tiny opening. As I said before we need a
linquist to translate the Southern speak. This is one reason why they
needed to prepare new transcripts of the DPD tapes.

> That "poof" you just heard was your entire conjecture (it's too
> bizarre and lacking in evidence to be elevated to a theory) going up
> in smoke.
>
> Rifle smoke. From the sixth floor SE corner window.
>

No one saw rifle smoke coming from the TSBD. Remember that WC defenders
claim modern rifles never emit any smoke. Get with the program.

[dcwillis]

It's pretty generally assumed that the "other witness" here is Charles
Brehm....

dcw

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

Speaking of imagination, or speculation, "end" does not mean "top". Even
Bugliosi didn't try to wriggle out of that transmission that easily.
"Could be read", yes, if you're desperate to smooth things out to
meaninglessness....

>
> If so, that means that transmission puts the window in question as
>
> "upper right hand corner" and "second window from the top". i.e. the
>
> sixth floor southeast corner window (since the top floor was the
>
> seventh floor, and the second one from the top was the sixth).
>
>
>
> More than likely, the witness in question was Howard Brennan.

Brennan did not venture away from the front of the building, & Patrolman
Hill was near the triple underpass. Funny--you have Brennan taking the
place of both CHarles Brehm & the unknown third person in Hill's
transmission! Next, you'll have Brennan taking Oswald's place....

Note
>
> that Brennan did not say he saw a shooter on the sixth floor - he told
>
> the officer he spoke to, that he saw the gunman in "one window from
>
> the top", which would again mean the sixth floor, if one were counting
>
> down (the top window would be the seventh floor, and one window from
>
> the top would be the sixth floor).
>

If (a) "end" meant "top", & (b) Brennan were Hill's witness. Doesn't &
wasn't....

That's a little even beyond speculation. That's almost, uh,
"misconstruing" (I assume you were doing a play on words. Yes,
clever....)

> Hank

[seansmil...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:22:03 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant cut

> >
>
> > Check photos of that westernmost window.  They're open all the way.  They
>
> > couldn't be opened any further.  The "nest" window is not all the way
>
> > open.
>

Note to Joe, er Hank: Disregard the above. Oh, he does, below....

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
>
> >
>
> > > > window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
>
> >
>
> > > > it--the second window from the end!
>
> >
>
> > >   Nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > No, Bud--testimony.  \
>
> >
>
> > Specter:  "You have marked the window on the sixth floor with the mark
>
> > being placed on the window on the WESTERN half of the first double
>
> > window"--i.e., the second window from the end. Sense.  Actual
>
> > comprehension of testimony....
>
>
>
> You seem to have left out some important information in your rush to
>
> judgment:
>
> -- quote --
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show
>
> that you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking
>
> being placed on the window on the westerly half of the first double
>
> window.
>
> Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the
>
> window where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double -
>
> actually this is the rifle window right here.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Will you take the black pencil again and draw an arrow -
>
> before you start to mark, hear the rest of the question - as precisely
>
> as you can to the exact spot where you saw what you have described as
>
> the rifle.
>
> (Witness marking.)

I believe I wrote that Jackson's *first* choice was that second, or
Western, window, & it was....

>
> Mr. SPECTER - Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
>
> from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Was the window you have just marked as being the spot
>
> from which the rifle protruded, open when you looked up?
>
> Mr. JACKSON - Yes, sir.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - What is your best recollection as to how far open it was
>
> at that time?
>
> Mr. JACKSON - I would say that it was open like that window there,
>
> halfway.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Indicating a window on the sixth floor of the
>
> westernmost portion of the building open halfway as you described it.
>
> My last comment, as to the description of your last window, is only
>
> for the purpose of what you have said in identifying a window to show
>
> how far open the window was.
>
> -- unquote --
>
>
>
> Now, what window did Jackson mark?

He first marked the second window from the end (not top)...

No need to question it, it's right
>
> here:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0485a.htm
>
>
>
> He marked the right-most (from the street) window of the sixth floor.
>
>
>
>
>
> And Jackson said the building hid the man from his view:
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Whether or not you could identify anyone, could you see
>
> even the form or outline of the man?
>
> Mr. JACKSON - No, sir. It looked to me like the man was over to the
>
> side of the window because the rifle was at quite an angle to me.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Which side of the window?
>
> Mr. JACKSON - Well, from the position of the rifle it would be the
>
> corner of the building, the east. It would be to the right of the
>
> window from my view.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Which direction was the rifle pointing?
>
> Mr. JACKSON - West. To my left.
>
> -- unquote --
>
>
>
> That would not be true if the shooter was shooting out the second
>
> window in the southeast corner on the sixth floor. Shooting out the
>
> second window would leave the shooter in sunlight.
>

Euins saw enough of the man to say it was a "colored man".

>
> And the second (the western one of the SE corner pair) window was
>
> closed in any case.

Put it all together, & Jackson was describing the wide open second window
from the end on the 5th floor. He may have corrected himself, a little
too late, re the second window, but his designation of a wide-open window
still stands....

>
> And the fifth floor window was open fully, the sixth floor window was
>
> opened only halfway (half of the maximum it could be opened).
>
> Your argument depends entirely on disregarding what "halfway" means
>
> and substituting your own definition).
>

You didn't even address what I was saying about "halfway", about the
westernmost window on the 6th floor! At least give it that old college
try!

CUT

[Bud]

On May 29, 10:34 pm, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:17:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> > > 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> > > 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
>
> > > the "second window from the end"?
>
> >   "How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"
>
> So, you're saying Williams was the shooter, no explanation needed?

No, I was characterizing you approach.

> > > 3)  Most likely explanation:
>
> >   The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
>
> > police misunderstood, ect.
>
> Hill was very precise.

How does that rule out the mundane explanations I suggested?

> > >   a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
>
> > > corner")
>
> >   Is a general vicinity in the building.
>
> But he adds "second window from the end".  Not general....

You do realize he could have been counting sets of windows as
windows, right?

> > >   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
> > >   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
>
> > > Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> > > 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> > > 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
>
> > > shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> > > 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
>
> > > 5th floor
>
> >   No one had a gun on the 5th floor.
>
> Okay, you're saying he saw his "colored man" with a gun on the *6th* floor, eh?

I`m saying he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor, not the
fifth.

> > > 1.1)  Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
>
> > > witness
>
> > > 1.2)  Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
>
> > > look a good fit
>
> > >   a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window
>
> >   He said "halfway". And he said there were black men under the
>
> > window.
>
> Read the testimony more closely, Bud.  The windows opened "halfway" at the
> most.  But the "sniper's nest" window at the east end was open only a
> quarter way then.
>
> Jackson:  "halfway"
>
> Specter:  "Indicating a window on the 6th floor of the WESTERNMOST portion
> of the building open halfway as you have described it".
>
> Check photos of that westernmost window.  They're open all the way.  They
> couldn't be opened any further.

> The "nest" window is not all the way
> open.

Oh, I know the game. You represent the window as being defined by
"colored man" or "openess" rather than where the witness actually
indicates.

> > >   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
>
> > > window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
>
> > > it--the second window from the end!
>
> >   Nonsense.
>
> No, Bud--testimony.  \
>
> Specter:  "You have marked the window on the sixth floor with the mark
> being placed on the window on the WESTERN half of the first double
> window"--i.e., the second window from the end. Sense.  Actual
> comprehension of testimony....

Also cherry picking...

Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show
that you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking
being placed on the window on the westerly half of the first double
window.
Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the
window where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double -
actually this is the rifle window right here

Like I indicated, it isn`t unusual for people to consider a set of
windows as one window.

>
>
>
>
>
> > >   c) Jackson testfied that he did not see the man who held the rifle, but
>
> > > a police report from a Sgt. Jennings said that Jackson saw both the
>
> > > "rifle" and the "man" (v2 p159 & v19 p517, resp.)
>
> > >   d) Apparently Jackson, like the "second window" witness, saw the rifle,
>
> > > looked away (perhaps to pick up his camera), then looked back, & saw the
>
> > > only man visible in the upper floors (Jackson's 11/22/63 affidavit has yet
>
> > > to surface)
>
> > > 1.1.1)  Jackson then is our "second window" witness
>
> > > 1.1.2)  And if he saw only one man in the upper right hand corner of the
>
> > > depository, so too did the other camera car witnesses
>
> > > 1.1.3)  Hence, the Dillard photographs showing two and three men there are
>
> > > fraudulent
>
> >   TA-DAH! dw has explained away the evidence that is harmful to his ideas.
>
> > His ideas now overrule everything, as far as he is concerned.
>
> They are Jackson's & Hill's "ideas".  And your misinterpretations of what
> they said....

You are playing silly games with the evidence, nothing more.

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly. "End" means the same thing as "top." Did you ever graduate from
kingergarten? Guess Sesame Street came too late for you.

> If so, that means that transmission puts the window in question as
> "upper right hand corner" and "second window from the top". i.e. the
> sixth floor southeast corner window (since the top floor was the
> seventh floor, and the second one from the top was the sixth).
>

Now you're just pulling a Harris.

[dcwillis]

Don`t worry. This is nothing new with Bud. He can`t admit when he`s wrong, as he was at least twice here....

On Friday, May 31, 2013 8:15:59 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On May 29, 10:34 pm, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:17:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> > > On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> >
>
> > > > 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> >
>
> > > > 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
>
> >
>
> > > > the "second window from the end"?
>
> >
>
> > >   "How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"
>
> >
>
> > So, you're saying Williams was the shooter, no explanation needed?
>
>
>
> No, I was characterizing you approach.
>
>
>
> > > > 3)  Most likely explanation:
>
> >
>
> > >   The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
>
> >
>
> > > police misunderstood, ect.
>
> >
>
> > Hill was very precise.
>
>
>
> How does that rule out the mundane explanations I suggested?
>

Okay, let`s say that he was very *clear*.... And both witness & policeman were taken from this transmission, which seems to say that Hill was quoting his witness correctly....

>
> > > >   a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
>
> >
>
> > > > corner")
>
> >
>
> > >   Is a general vicinity in the building.
>
> >
>
> > But he adds "second window from the end".  Not general....
>
>
>
> You do realize he could have been counting sets of windows as
>
> windows, right?
>

I considered that, but I doubt that the 5th-floor `second window`` man would be so far away from the actual shooter at the end window.

>
> > > >   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
> >
>
> > > >   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
>
> >
>
> > > > Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> >
>
> > > > 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> >
>
> > > > 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
>
> >
>
> > > > shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> >
>
> > > > 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
>
> >
>
> > > > 5th floor
>
> >
>
> > >   No one had a gun on the 5th floor.
>
> >
>
> > Okay, you're saying he saw his "colored man" with a gun on the *6th* floor, eh?
>
>
>
> I`m saying he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor, not the
>
> fifth.
>

And Euins initially said the man was `colored``. Don`t address that....

>
> > > > 1.1)  Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
>
> >
>
> > > > witness
>
> >
>
> > > > 1.2)  Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
>
> >
>
> > > > look a good fit
>
> >
>
> > > >   a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window
>
> >
>
> > >   He said "halfway". And he said there were black men under the
>
> >
>
> > > window.
>
> >
>
> > Read the testimony more closely, Bud.  The windows opened "halfway" at the
>
> > most.  But the "sniper's nest" window at the east end was open only a
>
> > quarter way then.
>
> >
>
> > Jackson:  "halfway"
>
> >
>
> > Specter:  "Indicating a window on the 6th floor of the WESTERNMOST portion
>
> > of the building open halfway as you have described it".
>
> >
>
> > Check photos of that westernmost window.  They're open all the way.  They
>
> > couldn't be opened any further.
>
>
>
> > The "nest" window is not all the way
>
> > open.
>
>
>
> Oh, I know the game. You represent the window as being defined by
>
> "colored man" or "openess" rather than where the witness actually
>
> indicates.
>

Here is one instance where BUd is clearly wrong, but he dare not admit it or his LN house o`cards tumbles down. So he says that I`m playing a game, & that he listens to witnesses when he thinks they`re *right*, doesn`t listen to them when he thinks they`re *wrong*.... You`d think that Bud at least could admit that the testimony & statements of witnesses such as Jackson, Brennan, & Euins are not cut & dry. So he cherry picks!

And he conveniently forgets that Jackson ``actually indicated``, initially, a second window from the end. Then he drew counsel`s attention to a wide open window. Jackson seems the clearest example of a witness trying to do what he has been told to do, but regressing to what he actually saw (2nd window, wide open). He`s Bud`s worst nightmare....

>
> > > >   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
>
> >
>
> > > > window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
>
> >
>
> > > > it--the second window from the end!
>
> >
>
> > >   Nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > No, Bud--testimony.  \
>
> >
>
> > Specter:  "You have marked the window on the sixth floor with the mark
>
> > being placed on the window on the WESTERN half of the first double
>
> > window"--i.e., the second window from the end. Sense.  Actual
>
> > comprehension of testimony....
>
>
>
> Also cherry picking...
>
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show
>
> that you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking
>
> being placed on the window on the westerly half of the first double
>
> window.
>
> Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the
>
> window where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double -
>
> actually this is the rifle window right here
>
>
>
>
>
> Like I indicated, it isn`t unusual for people to consider a set of
>
> windows as one window.
>

Then why did he *correct* himself--he seemed to think of them as two windows. He did a second marking CUT

[Bud]

On Jun 1, 11:34 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don`t worry.  This is nothing new with Bud.  He can`t admit when he`s wrong, as he was at least twice here....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 8:15:59 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On May 29, 10:34 pm, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:17:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> > > > On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> > > > > 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> > > > > 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
>
> > > > > the "second window from the end"?
>
> > > >   "How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"
>
> > > So, you're saying Williams was the shooter, no explanation needed?
>
> >   No, I was characterizing you approach.
>
> > > > > 3)  Most likely explanation:
>
> > > >   The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
>
> > > > police misunderstood, ect.
>
> > > Hill was very precise.
>
> >   How does that rule out the mundane explanations I suggested?
>
> Okay, let`s say that he was very *clear*....

So what was said was clear. How does that rule out the mundane
explanations I suggested?

> And both witness & policeman were taken from this transmission, which seems to say that Hill was quoting his witness correctly....
>

> > > > >   a) Hill's witness indeed saw a rifle in an end window ("upper right hand
>
> > > > > corner")
>
> > > >   Is a general vicinity in the building.
>
> > > But he adds "second window from the end".  Not general....
>
> >    You do realize he could have been counting sets of windows as
>
> > windows, right?
>
> I considered that, but I doubt that the 5th-floor `second window`` man would be so far away from the actual shooter at the end window.

Whatever that means.

>
>
>
> > > > >   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
> > > > >   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
>
> > > > > Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> > > > > 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> > > > > 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
>
> > > > > shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> > > > > 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
>
> > > > > 5th floor
>
> > > >   No one had a gun on the 5th floor.
>
> > > Okay, you're saying he saw his "colored man" with a gun on the *6th* floor, eh?
>
> >   I`m saying he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor, not the
>
> > fifth.
>
> And Euins initially said the  man was `colored``.  Don`t address that....
>

He said the man had a rifle. The colored men on the 5th floor were
unarmed. Don`t address that...

> > > > > 1.1)  Robert Jackson would not, at first, seem to fit the specs for Hill's
>
> > > > > witness
>
> > > > > 1.2)  Various pieces of witness evidence, however, begin to make Jackson
>
> > > > > look a good fit
>
> > > > >   a} Jackson indicated that the sniper fired from a wide-open window
>
> > > >   He said "halfway". And he said there were black men under the
>
> > > > window.
>
> > > Read the testimony more closely, Bud.  The windows opened "halfway" at the
>
> > > most.  But the "sniper's nest" window at the east end was open only a
>
> > > quarter way then.
>
> > > Jackson:  "halfway"
>
> > > Specter:  "Indicating a window on the 6th floor of the WESTERNMOST portion
>
> > > of the building open halfway as you have described it".
>
> > > Check photos of that westernmost window.  They're open all the way.  They
>
> > > couldn't be opened any further.
>
> > > The "nest" window is not all the way
>
> > > open.
>
> >   Oh, I know the game. You represent the window as being defined by
>
> > "colored man" or "openess" rather than where the witness actually
>
> > indicates.
>
> Here is one instance where BUd is clearly wrong, but he dare not admit it or his LN house o`cards tumbles down.  So he says that I`m playing a game, & that he listens to witnesses when he thinks they`re *right*, doesn`t listen to them when he thinks they`re *wrong*....

Which is exactly the right way to handle witnesses.

>You`d think that Bud at least could admit that the testimony & statements of witnesses such as Jackson, Brennan, & Euins are not cut & dry.  So he cherry picks!

I`m not mining the testimony looking for things to exploit, thats
your silly game.

> And he conveniently forgets that Jackson ``actually indicated``, initially, a second window from the end.  Then he drew counsel`s attention to a wide open window.  Jackson seems the clearest example of a witness trying to do what he has been told to do, but regressing to what he actually saw (2nd window, wide open).  He`s Bud`s worst nightmare....

Your favorite fantasy.

> > > > >   b) His first indication of the location of the window was a 6th-floor
>
> > > > > window--not, however, the "sniper's nest" window, but the one next to
>
> > > > > it--the second window from the end!
>
> > > >   Nonsense.
>
> > > No, Bud--testimony.  \
>
> > > Specter:  "You have marked the window on the sixth floor with the mark
>
> > > being placed on the window on the WESTERN half of the first double
>
> > > window"--i.e., the second window from the end. Sense.  Actual
>
> > > comprehension of testimony....
>
> >   Also cherry picking...
>
> >  Mr. SPECTER - Referring to your mark of "A," the photograph will show
>
> > that you have marked the window on the sixth floor with the marking
>
> > being placed on the window on the westerly half of the first double
>
> > window.
>
> >  Mr. JACKSON - I am sorry. This window here on the very end was the
>
> > window where the weapon was. I am sorry, I just marked the double -
>
> > actually this is the rifle window right here
>
> >   Like I indicated, it isn`t unusual for people to consider a set of
>
> > windows as one window.
>
> Then why did he *correct* himself--

To be more precise.

[dcwillis]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:28:07 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:34 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don`t worry.  This is nothing new with Bud.  He can`t admit when he`s wrong, as he was at least twice here....
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Friday, May 31, 2013 8:15:59 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 10:34 pm, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:17:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On May 28, 10:33 am, dcwillis <seansmileyran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > The "Second Window" Transmission Trumps the Dillards
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 1)  All agreed: the depository shots came from an end window
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 2)  What then to make of Patrolman Hill's 12:37 transmission re shots from
>
> >
>
> > > > > > the "second window from the end"?
>
> >
>
> > > > >   "How do I explain away the information that goes against my ideas?"
>
> >
>
> > > > So, you're saying Williams was the shooter, no explanation needed?
>
> >
>
> > >   No, I was characterizing you approach.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 3)  Most likely explanation:
>
> >
>
> > > > >   The people who gave the information to the police wren`t clear, the
>
> >
>
> > > > > police misunderstood, ect.
>
> >
>
> > > > Hill was very precise.
>
> >
>
> > >   How does that rule out the mundane explanations I suggested?
>
> >
>
> > Okay, let`s say that he was very *clear*....
>
>
>
> So what was said was clear. How does that rule out the mundane
>
> explanations I suggested?
>

As I've said, harmless explanations can be pretty much ruled out by the
trouble that was taken to hide both the witness & the cop. See how much
trouble Hank has gone to to try to ID the witness--first stop, Howard
Brennan, but the rest of us have gone beyond that. And Hill's
police-radio message (or the cop's "22") was mistranscribed by the
dispatcher. An accident? No--the mistranscription was honored as fact at
the hearings, where Officer Haygood (NOT Officer 22) said *he* sent Hill's
message & where Haygood dummied up. The police wouldn't go to these
lengths to cover up harmless misunderstandings.... (Commission counsel,
Belin, tried, but couldn't get beyond, Haygood's Dunno dunno dunno

dcw

[dcwillis]

Doubt that is that the man mistaken for the shooter could be as far away as the next double-window

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > >   b) momentarily looked away, perhaps toward limo
>
> >
>
> > > > > >   c) looked back towards rifle site & saw only one person in the vicinity,
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Bonnie Ray Williams, in the second window from the end, on the fifth floor
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 4)  Why not fix on Harold Norman, in the SE 5th-floor end window?
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 5)  Because, obviously:  There was no one in that end window, after the
>
> >
>
> > > > > > shots were fired, for the "second window" witness to see
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 6)  Amos Euins, also, saw only one "colored man", which means of course
>
> >
>
> > > > > > 5th floor
>
> >
>
> > > > >   No one had a gun on the 5th floor.
>
> >
>
> > > > Okay, you're saying he saw his "colored man" with a gun on the *6th* floor, eh?
>
> >
>
> > >   I`m saying he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor, not the
>
> >
>
> > > fifth.
>
> >
>
> > And Euins initially said the  man was `colored``.  Don`t address that....
>
> >
>
> He said the man had a rifle.

And he said that he was colored. Pretty clearly, Euins saw a man with a
rifle at an end window, looked away, looked back & saw *one* colored man
in a window nearby & thought that he was the shooter.

dcw

[Bud]

Still don`t see you ruling out mundane explanations for these
things. You have to do this before you can move on to the fantastic
ones you favor.

> dcw

[dcwillis]

Did.
>
> > dcw

[dcwillis]

Seems like half of my last or second-to-last post was lost...??
dcw

[dcwillis]

(This is what was lost yesterday....) Notice that Bud does not admit that
he was wrong. That he did not do his homework. At first, he simply saw
the word "halfway" in Jackson's testimony & stopped there, without looking
at the photo of the westernmost window which Jackson said showed how wide
the window was open--all the way that it could be opened (unlike the
"nest" window). So instead of admitting that he was wrong, he now simply
dismisses Jackson's testimony re how wide the window was open, which
testimony he (incorrectly) used last time! That testimony seemed to work
for him, at first; now it doesn't, & he must dismiss it....

dcw

[Bud]

What I wrote was 100% true and accurate.

[dcwillis]

But it wasn't the whole truth, as you apparently discovered. A fine
lawyerly point: Jackson did say "halfway", but what he then indicated at
the west-end window was that his "halfway" meant "all the way". Yes, you
apparently finally did your homework, & discovered that what you said was
the half-truth, or 50% of the truth. And oh! that other 50%. Jackson
could not use the "sniper's" window to show how far open it was at the
time of the shooting. He knew that that window was wrong....

dcw

[Bud]

But it was 100% true and accurate.

[dcwillis]

uesday, June 4, 2013 7:39:51 PM UTC-7, BudCUT

See the "Second Window" vs the Dillards (recap)