The Best "Earwitnesses" Say...
robcap...@netscape.com
shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
more cases than not?
lazu...@webtv.net
heard shots come over his head. I really can't fathom anyone that
doesn't believe in a conspiracy, that has studied this for any time, an
the neuromuscular reaction is just too ridiculous for words...
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> more cases than not?
Their most used excuse is that the earwitnesses heard "echoes", but
THAT excuse has been picked apart in recent years by myself as well as
others. For "Echoes" to come from the knoll area, there would have had
to have been something there to reflect the sound, that is, for the
sound to be bounced off of and be "reflected" to the ears of the folks
who heard them.
There was no such structure in that are for the sound to be bounced
off of. The sound would have gone through and over the Triple
Overpass. The sound would have travelled over the wooden fence. The
sound would have travelled through the Pergola.
There is no way that a shot fired from the TSBD could have produced an
"echo" that would have fooled the earwitnesses into believing the shot
was fired from the knoll.
Besides, what type of echo produces "a puff of smoke" ?
I'm still waiting for them to answer THAT one !!
WITNESSES ON VIDEO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY SAW:
JEAN HILL & MARY MOORMAN 11/22/63
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu99dGBPh6M
CHARLES BREHM 11/22/63
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQobKz5XX9U
WILLIAM & GAYLE NEWMAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi3hKo7dwt0
NEWMAN ON 11/22/63
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4
S.M.HOLLAND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55jY6RUvxAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro
RICHARD C. DODD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4
LEE BOWERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
JAMES LEON SIMMONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLd3O-Tch6o
J.C.PRICE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaJQgLmeTg
BEVERLY OLIVER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-IXYfge2Ys
JEAN HILL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hV3DhPT3I
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> it was the Triple Underpass/Knoll area that was the source of the
> shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
> front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
> they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
> than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
Now, all you need to do is establish that sheriff`s deputies note
the direction of loud noise when they don`t see the source better than
your average person, and you are on your way.
> 16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
> and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
> said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
> That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
> area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
>
> Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> more cases than not?
How well do people place sound when they don`t see the cause of
that sound? Have you ever tried to locate a singing bird in the woods?
Until you actually see it, you will usually have a tough time
pinpointing it`s location from the sound alone.
Bud
> On Jul 20, 3:03�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> > plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> > more cases than not?
>
> Their most used excuse is that the earwitnesses heard "echoes", but
> THAT excuse has been picked apart in recent years by myself as well as
> others.
<snicker> You couldn`t pick your nose without poking yourself in the
eye.
> For "Echoes" to come from the knoll area, there would have had
> to have been something there to reflect the sound, that is, for the
> sound to be bounced off of and be "reflected" to the ears of the folks
> who heard them.
How do you explain that people indicated different directions for
the source of the shots? Did different people hear a different three
loud shots?
> There was no such structure in that are for the sound to be bounced
> off of. The sound would have gone through and over the Triple
> Overpass. The sound would have travelled over the wooden fence. The
> sound would have travelled through the Pergola.
>
> There is no way that a shot fired from the TSBD could have produced an
> "echo" that would have fooled the earwitnesses into believing the shot
> was fired from the knoll.
If kooks were actually interested in the truth behind these issues,
they would test their ideas instead of just making claims. Get a
person, put him in a setting surrounded by a mix of hard surfaces and
open space. Blindfold the person. Go a couple hundred feet away in a
random direction. Fire a starter pistol, or set off an M-80, or some
such sudden noise maker. Have the blindfolded person point in the
direction he thinks the sound originated from. make the noise from a
variety of directions, use a variety of people. Produce the results on
You-tube. Or, talk out of your asses for decades about what would or
would not happen.
> Besides, what type of echo produces "a puff of smoke" ?
What kind of rifle does? A musket?
> I'm still waiting for them to answer THAT one !!
>
> WITNESSES ON VIDEO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY SAW:
>
> JEAN HILL & MARY MOORMAN 11/22/63
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu99dGBPh6M
>
> CHARLES BREHM 11/22/63
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQobKz5XX9U
>
> WILLIAM & GAYLE NEWMAN
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi3hKo7dwt0
>
> NEWMAN ON 11/22/63
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4
>
> S.M.HOLLAND
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55jY6RUvxAIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro
Bud
If a small nerve in the knee can make a whole leg jump when
struck, why couldn`t sudden massive damage to the king of the nervous
system cause a body to jerk backwards?
But, I was thinking of the physics involved in a skull shot because
of a discussion over on the moderated board. Seems to me that when a
bullet strikes skull, it is the bone that transfers energy outward
from the point of impact, not the bullet itself, the bullet travelling
through brain doesn`t impart much energy at all. Think of lining up
bricks in a row across a table. You hit the first brick with a hammer,
that brick hits the next, that brick hits the next, until the end
brick falls off the other end of the table. It isn`t the hammer that
knocks it off it, it`s the energy imparted from the previous brick.
The same for skull, the energy imparted from the bullet races outward
in all directions from the point of impact, until what? Until it
reaches the front of the skull, where it impacts with the energy
coming from the other direction. Let me try to explain in a manner
that can`t be misunderstood. Say, you have a mellon. Stab it with a
pencil. Now, imagine arrows emanating in all directions equally from
that pencil. Where would all those arrows (representing the path of
energy) meet up again? On the opposite side away from the pencil. What
happens when this enegry collides? Equal and opposite reaction,
right? Anyone know anything enough about physics to explain the flaw
in this? Calling resident kook egghead Herbert, come in Herbert.
David Von Pein
>>> "16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion and ONLY 1 said the TSBD." <<<
Which means we can KNOW with certainty that almost all of those
Sheriff's officers were dead wrong.
Unless Robby wants to pretend that ZERO shots actually did come from
the TSBD.
What about that, Rob?
curtjester1
I think that that is on par with Bud's 'Bird's In The Wood's'
reasoning....or in this case an effort at total retardation.
CJ
Bud
So, it`s you contention that people always accurately pinpoint the
source of sound, even when they don`t see the cause of that sound. Can
you back that up?
> CJ
Gil Jesus
>On Jul 20, 3:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Which means we can KNOW with certainty that almost all of those
>> Sheriff's officers were dead wrong.
In Von Pinhead's world, the only ones who got it right were the ones
who WEREN'T there.
lazu...@webtv.net
it-16 out of 20 Sherriff's deputies would all have to be wrong, plus
half a dozen RR workers, plus most of the closest witnesses to the car
at Z313, plus all the parkland Doctors and nurses have to be mistaken
about the throat wound and back of the head wound-what are the odds..I
tell you what the odds are... less than zero...good stuff keep postin'
it...Laz
Bud
> This is why I won't waste a second debating lone nutters-
Because you can`t address the points we make?
>think about
> it-16 out of 20 Sherriff's deputies would all have to be wrong,
Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
came from the TSBD?
David Von Pein
>>> "16 out of 20 Sheriff's deputies would all have to be wrong, plus half a dozen RR workers, plus most of the closest witnesses to the car at Z313..." <<<
Of course those "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL" witnesses that CTers
love to prop up (for some reason) were all wrong....every one of them.
Even CTers have got to admit that none of those Sheriff's officers got
it 100% right (even by crazy CT standards).
Why?
Because we know that SOME shots did come from the TSBD. Even CTers
know this. Not even a kook like Rob can think that ALL of the shots
came from the front (i.e., the Knoll). Right, Robby?
Therefore, since almost no witnesses thought that shots came from BOTH
the Knoll AND the Depository (there were a mere five witnesses who fit
into this "Two Directions" category, by John McAdams' count), it means
what exactly??? .....
It means: that none of those "Shots Came From Only The Knoll"
witnesses got it right....doesn't it?
IOW--Why didn't any of those witnesses hear the verified gunshots from
the TSBD (the shots that even hardcore CTers certainly must admit came
from that building)?
Or--maybe those witnesses DID hear the TSBD shots, didn't they? Of
course they did. We all know they did. They heard ONLY shots coming
from the Book Depository, because the huge preponderance of evidence
shows that the ONLY shots (3) fired that day came from the Book
Depository (and were fired by Oswald and by his Carcano).
But those many witnesses THOUGHT the shots came from a point further
west near the Underpass....but they were wrong. All of the "ONE-
DIRECTIONAL, ALL-SHOTS-CAME-FROM-THE-KNOLL" witnesses in Dealey Plaza
were wrong. We know that. Why is this even debated?
In fact, as I mentioned, even conspiracy theorists have got to know
these witnesses were not 100% correct -- because virtually all of them
said they heard ALL of the shots coming from one single location--the
Knoll area--which we all know is incorrect.
aeffects
> On Jul 20, 8:33 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > This is why I won't waste a second debating lone nutters-
>
> Because you can`t address the points we make?
>
> >think about
> > it-16 out of 20 Sherriff's deputies would all have to be wrong,
>
> Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
> came from the TSBD?
Who is David Von Pein?
Bud
> On Jul 20, 6:27 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:33 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > This is why I won't waste a second debating lone nutters-
>
> > Because you can`t address the points we make?
>
> > >think about
> > > it-16 out of 20 Sherriff's deputies would all have to be wrong,
>
> > Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
> > came from the TSBD?
>
> Who is David Von Pein?
See, I told you to lay off the drugs, and look what happened. You
don`t even have enough brain power left to recognize the regular
posters here.
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?
Stewart Galanor lists (by my count) 18 sheriff deputies here:
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Index.htm
Depository witnesses : 1 (Sweatt)
Knoll witnesses : 4 (Boone*, Elkins, Mooney, Weatherford)
Not asked : 13
(*) I would tend to place Boone in the "Not asked" category as he
expressed no opinion of his own in regard to the source of the shots.
Isn't it funny, Rob, that you're suspicious about everything in the
WCR and the 26 Volumes, while conspiracy writers like Ira David Wood
are trusted implicitly? Here's the portion of his Assassination
Chronology that you paraphrased above:
<WOOD ON>
JFK’s limo passes almost twenty sheriff’s deputies standing at the
intersection of Main and Houston in front of the Sheriff’s Office.
(Later, the deputies will almost unanimously agree that they believe
the shots came from the railroad yards located just behind the Grassy
Knoll. Of the twenty Dallas Police deputies who will give statements
regarding today’s events, “sixteen thought the assassin had fired from
the area of the grassy knoll” while three had “no opinion” and one
“decided the shots came from” the Book Depository.)
<WOOD OFF>
Wood, btw, seems to be relying on data from Harold Feldman's
notoriously unreliable 1965 article:
<FELDMAN ON>
We have found ten deputies of the sheriff's office who were on
assignment at the assassination scene who were not called on for
evidence. Most of them would, probably, have felt and reacted like the
twenty recorded deputies. Of these twenty, only one decided the shots
came from the TSBDB, three gave no opinion, and sixteen thought this
assassin had fired from the area of the grassy knoll.
<FELDMAN OFF>
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
-Mark
curtjester1
outside and the Railroady Men would have just started down Main
Street.... And BTW there weren't any buildings on the GK to bounce
off anything.
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> � �Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
> came from the TSBD?
No shots came from the Oswald rifle.
Now answer MY question:
What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
and while you're at it...answer this question as well....
What evidence do you have that the Oswald rifle was even fired in
Dealey Plaza ?
Was it ever tested ?
And don't give me that BS about the shells found on the sixth floor,
because two of those three shells didn't have the marking of the
Oswald rifle's firing pin on their primers.
Absent a chain-of-possession (including photographs of the location of
the fragments AS FOUND) the shells and the bullet fragments currently
in evidence are NOT proof that the rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza.
They're only proof that the rifle was fired AT SOME POINT.
And we know that it was fired while in possession of the authorities.
lazu...@webtv.net
the TSBD, though on the latter I'm more skeptical the point is-don't
tell me the SBT is a fact, or no shots came from the knoll, it's just
friggin' absurd, and shows the dsingenuous of almost all lone nutters
not to concede there are good reasons not to believe these key tenets of
the warren report.
I also think if the leading conspiracists had focused on knocking out
the SBT-The headshot from the knoll-the tampered medical evidence, and
Oswald's Intell connections, instead of emphasizing Oswald's unknowable
innocence..we'd be a lot farther along by now.
curtjester1
It's really a good point, Laz. I think Armstrong came along too late,
though, as I think 'Oswald' is revealed now. People generally don't
care....and it leads really to Why and How of the crime. You can only
circle jerk over the Dealey Plaza evidence or so long.....
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
> On Jul 20, 9:27�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > � �Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
> > came from the TSBD?
>
> No shots came from the Oswald rifle.
>
> Now answer MY question:
>
> What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
>
> and while you're at it...answer this question as well....
>
> What evidence do you have that the Oswald rifle was even fired in
> Dealey Plaza ?
>
> Was it ever tested ?
>
> And don't give me that BS about the shells found on the sixth floor,
> because two of those three shells didn't have the marking of the
> Oswald rifle's firing pin on their primers.
>
"I noticed that you like to use your own previous posts to support
your position. I just wanted you to know that using yourself as a
source or reference verifies nothing. Verification comes from a source
not oneself and using oneself to verify one's position is a tactic not
used by any serious or respected researcher." (Gil Jesus, 8 April
2007)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cae11b5936626fce
Here's a couple of real sources for Gil's consideration:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I hand you Commission Exhibits 545,
543, and 544, which for the record consist of three shells, three
rifle cartridge cases, which were found on the sixth floor of the TSBD
building at the easternmost corner of the south face. I ask you
whether you are familiar with those shells?
Mr. DULLES. They bear your mark?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; there is a little JDN inscribed very lightly
under the Q position.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are familiar with these shells?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. And these were given to me by you on the same day
I received the projectiles.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 557, which also consists
of-which consists of two expended shells, and I ask you whether you
are familiar with them.
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir. These are the specimens, the two shells which I
used as standards or tests to compare against the other three fired
cartridge cases.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you obtained those from what source?
Mr. NICOL. I obtained these from Mr. Eisenberg on the 24th of March
here in this offce.
Mr. EISENBERG. Again for the record, I obtained these shells from the
FBI and turned them over directly to Mr. Nicol, and they have been
identified earlier as having been fired by the FBI from Exhibit 139,
the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building.
Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the shells in Exhibits 543, 544, and
546 to determine whether they had been fired from the same rifle as
fired the shells in Exhibit 567?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and
the breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it
is my opinion that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were
fired in the same weapon as fired Exhibit 557.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0257a.htm
Were the three expended cartridge cases (CE 543, CE 544 and CE 545)
found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository fired in
the CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
(131) The panel compared microscopically the three expanded cartridge
cases (CE 543, CE 544, and CE 545) with the two cartridge cases test-
fired by the FBI (CE 557) and the four cartridge cases (Kennedy T-1 to
T-4) test-fired by panel in CE 139 rifle.
(132) The panel found correspondence among the individual identifying
characteristics made by the firing pin and bolt face on the cartridge
cases. (See Figs. 21A, B, C, and D.)
(133) The panel found, in addition to the above impressions, three
sets of striations on the head of the CE 543 cartridge case. The marks
were not found on any of the other 6.5-millimeter caliber cartridge
cases. The origin of the marks could not be established.
(134) The panel concluded that all three cartridge cases had been
fired in the CE 139 rifle.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0189b.htm
-Mark
Bud
> On Jul 20, 5:15 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:01 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 3:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion and ONLY 1 said the TSBD." <<<
>
> > > > Which means we can KNOW with certainty that almost all of those
> > > > Sheriff's officers were dead wrong.
>
> > > > Unless Robby wants to pretend that ZERO shots actually did come from
> > > > the TSBD.
>
> > > > What about that, Rob?
>
> > > I think that that is on par with Bud's 'Bird's In The Wood's'
> > > reasoning....or in this case an effort at total retardation.
>
> > So, it`s you contention that people always accurately pinpoint the
> > source of sound, even when they don`t see the cause of that sound. Can
> > you back that up?
>
> I would think with your reasoning Bud, that the Sheriff's standing
> outside and the Railroady Men would have just started down Main
> Street....
So you can produce nothing to back up your underlying assumption
that people accurately pinpoint the location of sound when they don`t
see the cause of that sound.
> And BTW there weren't any buildings on the GK to bounce
> off anything.
You thought I said "building"?
Bud
> On Jul 20, 9:27�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > � �Why not address DVP`s point. Is it your contention that no shots
> > came from the TSBD?
>
> No shots came from the Oswald rifle.
JFK would be glad to hear that, if he hadn`t been killed by
Oswald`s rifle..
> Now answer MY question:
>
> What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
What kind of modern ammunition does? Why would an assassin use ammo
that gave away his location?
> and while you're at it...answer this question as well....
>
> What evidence do you have that the Oswald rifle was even fired in
> Dealey Plaza ?
Besides the injuries caused by the bullets fired from it?
> Was it ever tested ?
It would probably outscore you on a high school equivalency test.
> And don't give me that BS about the shells found on the sixth floor,
> because two of those three shells didn't have the marking of the
> Oswald rifle's firing pin on their primers.
What do you suppose happened to the bullets that once resided in
those shells?
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> Absent a chain-of-possession (including photographs of the location of
> the fragments AS FOUND) the shells and the bullet fragments currently
> in evidence are NOT proof that the rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza.
I get it, you think internet idiots makes these kinds of rulings,
not judges.
> They're only proof that the rifle was fired AT SOME POINT.
At some point in the back of JFK`s head.
> And we know that it was fired while in possession of the authorities.
And we know you are an idiot. How can we make use of these
unconnected bits of information?
lazu...@webtv.net
Stone's JFK, or if Russell's Man Who Knew Too Much had come out about a
year earlier it would have been a best seller, or Fonzi's the Last
Investigation, & these excellent works would have had much more impact.
Of course, a lot of the documents Armstrong used were from the ARRB.
Books like The Texas Connection, and High Treason 2, were top ten best
sellers in the ny times early 92', and are largely forgotten now. Laz
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > it was the Triple Underpass/Knoll area that was the source of the
> > shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
> > front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
> > they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
> > than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
>
> Now, all you need to do is establish that sheriff`s deputies note
> the direction of loud noise when they don`t see the source better than
> your average person, and you are on your way.
Police officers are trained and used to gunshots far more than most
civilians. You can try and spin this anyway you want, but you are
sunk. If they are so poor at this why didn't they pick the site closer
to them for the source of the shots (TSBD)?
> > 16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
> > and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
> > said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
> > That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
> > area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
>
> > Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> > plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> > more cases than not?
>
> How well do people place sound when they don`t see the cause of
> that sound? Have you ever tried to locate a singing bird in the woods?
> Until you actually see it, you will usually have a tough time
> pinpointing it`s location from the sound alone.
You are full of hot air. Why aren't you answering the question? Oh
that's right, because the vast majority said the shots did NOT come
from the TSBD! Next.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion and ONLY 1 said the TSBD." <<<
>
> Which means we can KNOW with certainty that almost all of those
> Sheriff's officers were dead wrong.
Wow!!! What a big claim, can you prove it?
> Unless Robby wants to pretend that ZERO shots actually did come from
> the TSBD.
Of course NOT.
> What about that, Rob?
What about what? First prove 16 police officers are wrong.
robcap...@netscape.com
First and foremost, it is YOUR responsiblity to prove they are wrong.
When will this happen? Maybe this century?
David Von Pein
>>> "No shots came from the Oswald rifle." <<<
If you can't even get this extremely-easy one right, God help you when
you start "investigating" the remainder of this double-murder case.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "16 out of 20 Sheriff's deputies would all have to be wrong, plus half a dozen RR workers, plus most of the closest witnesses to the car at Z313..." <<<
>
> Of course those "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL" witnesses that CTers
> love to prop up (for some reason) were all wrong....every one of them.
> Even CTers have got to admit that none of those Sheriff's officers got
> it 100% right (even by crazy CT standards).
>
> Why?
>
> Because we know that SOME shots did come from the TSBD. Even CTers
> know this. Not even a kook like Rob can think that ALL of the shots
> came from the front (i.e., the Knoll). Right, Robby?
Of course not that is why I said 5 said the TSBD was the source, but
the problem for you is 20 said the knoll area was the source of the
shots. Oh well, too bad for you.
> Therefore, since almost no witnesses thought that shots came from BOTH
> the Knoll AND the Depository (there were a mere five witnesses who fit
> into this "Two Directions" category, by John McAdams' count), it means
> what exactly??? .....
It means way more said the knoll was the source of the shots, in fact,
2/3s of those asked said this.
> It means: that none of those "Shots Came From Only The Knoll"
> witnesses got it right....doesn't it?
>
> IOW--Why didn't any of those witnesses hear the verified gunshots from
> the TSBD (the shots that even hardcore CTers certainly must admit came
> from that building)?
What are you blabbering about? Confusion is the LNers best friend.
2/3s said the knoll area had shots fired from it. The Dal-Tex
building had shots fired from it as well.
> Or--maybe those witnesses DID hear the TSBD shots, didn't they? Of
> course they did. We all know they did. They heard ONLY shots coming
> from the Book Depository, because the huge preponderance of evidence
> shows that the ONLY shots (3) fired that day came from the Book
> Depository (and were fired by Oswald and by his Carcano).
You are full of crap as 2/3s of those asked listed the knoll as the
area for the shots. You can't explain this away.
> But those many witnesses THOUGHT the shots came from a point further
> west near the Underpass....but they were wrong. All of the "ONE-
> DIRECTIONAL, ALL-SHOTS-CAME-FROM-THE-KNOLL" witnesses in Dealey Plaza
> were wrong. We know that. Why is this even debated?
We DON'T know that, you and the WC are saying this with NO proof.
Prove it to be true and it won't be debate any longer.
> In fact, as I mentioned, even conspiracy theorists have got to know
> these witnesses were not 100% correct -- because virtually all of them
> said they heard ALL of the shots coming from one single location--the
> Knoll area--which we all know is incorrect.
Doesn't matter as the shots they heard came from the knoll. End of
story.
David Von Pein
>>> "Prove 16 police officers are wrong." <<<
Already did. The officers you're referring to thought that ALL of the
gunshots they heard came from the general area of the "Knoll", which
means they were wrong.
Why?
Because we KNOW that ALL of the shots did NOT come exclusively from
the "Knoll".
Idiot.
Therefore, even YOU (Robert--a mega-kook) have no choice but to think
that those officers were "wrong" about SOMETHING -- i.e., about the
source of some of the shots they heard.*
* = Unless Rob now wants to switch gears in the middle of the
discussion and claim that all of the Rear/TSBD shots were
"silenced"....which we know is an utterly-silly notion, due to so many
other people HEARING shots from that building.
But Rob probably doesn't care about the large number of "We Only Heard
Shots From The TSBD" earwitnesses (witnesses who heard things that are
corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE inside the Depository as well,
which is another important point that CT-Kooks will continually
overlook and/or sidestep).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg
Rob, as always, prefers to munch on chaff even when a huge bowl of
wheat is right under his nose.
Go figure the strange cravings of a conspiracist.
~shrug~
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 20 Jul., 21:03, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > it was the Triple Underpass/Knoll area that was the source of the
> > shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
> > front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
> > they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
> > than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
>
> > 16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
> > and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
> > said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
> > That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
> > area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
>
> > Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> > plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> > more cases than not?
>
> How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?
Is this your new tactic? You can't refute the post based on the WC's
"evidence" so you attack the writer?
> Stewart Galanor lists (by my count) 18 sheriff deputies here:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Index.htm
>
> Depository witnesses : 1 (Sweatt)
> Knoll witnesses : 4 (Boone*, Elkins, Mooney, Weatherford)
> Not asked : 13
>
> (*) I would tend to place Boone in the "Not asked" category as he
> expressed no opinion of his own in regard to the source of the shots.
>
> Isn't it funny, Rob, that you're suspicious about everything in the
> WCR and the 26 Volumes, while conspiracy writers like Ira David Wood
> are trusted implicitly?
I have NOT seen one wrong thing in his chronolgies so why wouldn't I
believe it? I have seen hundreds of lies in the WC's work so of
course I don't believe that. If Mr. Wood is incorrect, why isn't he
sued?
Here's the portion of his Assassination Chronology that you
paraphrased above:
> <WOOD ON>
>
> JFK’s limo passes almost twenty sheriff’s deputies standing at the
> intersection of Main and Houston in front of the Sheriff’s Office.
> (Later, the deputies will almost unanimously agree that they believe
> the shots came from the railroad yards located just behind the Grassy
> Knoll. Of the twenty Dallas Police deputies who will give statements
> regarding today’s events, “sixteen thought the assassin had fired from
> the area of the grassy knoll” while three had “no opinion” and one
> “decided the shots came from” the Book Depository.)
>
> <WOOD OFF>
>
> Wood, btw, seems to be relying on data from Harold Feldman's
> notoriously unreliable 1965 article:
You be WRONG yet again, I got this information from the same place Mr.
Wood got it, page 435 of "Crossfire" the great, and correct book, by
Jim Marrs. It looks like "Junior Columbo" is wrong again.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are full of crap as 2/3s of those asked listed the knoll as the area for the shots. You can't explain this away." <<<
I wonder why the kook named Rob fails to understand that he, too, MUST
believe that every single one of the "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL"
witnesses GOT SOMETHING WRONG (i.e., they failed to hear the verified
FROM-THE-REAR gunshots)??
Thick pills perhaps?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Prove 16 police officers are wrong." <<<
>
> Already did. The officers you're referring to thought that ALL of the
> gunshots they heard came from the general area of the "Knoll", which
> means they were wrong.
>
> Why?
>
> Because we KNOW that ALL of the shots did NOT come exclusively from
> the "Knoll".
>
> Idiot.
Idiot? Then explain why nearly 50 law enforcement officers searched
the knoll area moments after the shots while only a small number went
to the TSBD. We have them on film, we have witnesses to confirm and
we have photos so don't try and deny this. As Mark Lane said:
"Police Officers in general tend to identify with a case developed
against a defendent. In this case, had any officer wanted to alter his
story after the event, he would have been contridicted by the evidence
of his own actions. He might be hard pressed to explain why he ran
towards a hill, why he scaled a fence on the hill and searched the
area behind the fence just after the President was shot in his
presence if he really suspected that the assassin was somewhere
else." (RTJ, p. 43)
Good luck with that one.
> Therefore, even YOU (Robert--a mega-kook) have no choice but to think
> that those officers were "wrong" about SOMETHING -- i.e., about the
> source of some of the shots they heard.*
>
> * = Unless Rob now wants to switch gears in the middle of the
> discussion and claim that all of the Rear/TSBD shots were
> "silenced"....which we know is an utterly-silly notion, due to so many
> other people HEARING shots from that building.
Let's hear from someone in front of the TSBD:
"I heard shots being fired from a point which I thought was near the
railroad tracks located over the viaduct near Elm Street." Cambell
would further state he "had no occassion to look back at the TSBD
building as I thought the shots had come from the west." -- Ochus V.
Campbell, VP of TSBD (XXII, 638)
> But Rob probably doesn't care about the large number of "We Only Heard
> Shots From The TSBD" earwitnesses (witnesses who heard things that are
> corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE inside the Depository as well,
> which is another important point that CT-Kooks will continually
> overlook and/or sidestep).
Large number? 2/3s asked said the shots were fired from the knoll
area.
> Rob, as always, prefers to munch on chaff even when a huge bowl of
> wheat is right under his nose.
You are the one trying to feed people chaff and distort the actual
events.
> Go figure the strange cravings of a conspiracist.
>
> ~shrug~
Go figure a guy who spends all his time distorting the truth.
~Head scratch~
David Von Pein
>>> "Large number? 2/3s asked said the shots were fired from the knoll area." <<<
Bullshit. The pct. of "Knoll" witnesses isn't nearly as high as 67%.
It's half that figure, Mr. Kook:
David Von Pein
>>> "Explain why nearly 50 law enforcement officers searched the knoll area moments after the shots while only a small number went to the TSBD." <<<
50? I think that that total of "nearly 50" is probably a tad bit "kook
inflated" (as per their norm). But I haven't counted them up recently.
But, anyway, the answer is obvious -- many of those witnesses
(officers) did, indeed, THINK they heard shots (ALL of the shots,
which we know is a wrong assumption) coming from the Knoll area. But
they were wrong. Period. And simple. Even for a simpleton like Rob.
And some of those many "Knoll Stormers" were probably merely playing
follow-the-leader too, without having a firm opinion as to the exact
source of the gunfire they heard. Like a good car wreck, rubber-
necking was bound to follow....and since several people did, indeed,
initially run toward the Knoll, that's where others went also.
I've also asked this in the past too, and I'll ask it again:
If you had just heard gunfire from a rifle in a certain location, and
therefore were pretty certain that an assassin with a weapon was in
that area, would you have ANY DESIRE WHATSOEVER to start running
directly toward the place where the assassin was located?
Yes, a police officer would want to do that very thing (it's his job,
naturally). But what about the regular, ordinary citizens who ran
toward the Knoll that day? Their "job" wasn't to apprehend the
shooter.
Call me a coward, but the VERY LAST PLACE I'd want to be located at
that precise moment in history (i.e., a few seconds after the
President of the United States had been gunned down) would be the
exact spot where I thought the murderer had just fired a rifle from.
That's just nuts. And potential suicide.
Which, again, lends credence to the "They Were Merely Following The
Leader Toward The Knoll Without Really Knowing If A Killer Was Located
There" theory.
BTW, what evidence of a shooter did those "nearly 50" (??) officers
find on the Knoll?
Vs.:
What evidence of a gunman did the searchers of the 6th Floor of the
TSBD find?
Again....simple. Even for a kook.
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!! He offers a biased, full of lies to prove his point!!!
Priceless. Too bad you can't distort the truth as the numbers speak
for themselves. Here they are:
90 persons were asked where the shots originated, and could give an
answer (123 would be NOT asked this vital question) and the results
were:
58 said the Grassy Knoll, and
32 said the TSBD
Now, my math is not always the best so I dug out my calculator and
found out that the percentages were:
.64% for the Knoll, and
.36% for the TSBD
So you are right, I rounded up like many others have as it is not
quite a full two-thirds, but it was enough of a lead that they quickly
stopped asking anyone else what they thought.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Explain why nearly 50 law enforcement officers searched the knoll area moments after the shots while only a small number went to the TSBD." <<<
>
> 50? I think that that total of "nearly 50" is probably a tad bit "kook
> inflated" (as per their norm). But I haven't counted them up recently.
This is what witnesses said, dispute it with them.
> But, anyway, the answer is obvious -- those witnesses (officers) did,
> indeed, THINK they heard shots (ALL of the shots, which we know is a
> wrong assumption) coming from the Knoll area. But they were wrong.
> Period. And simple. Even for a simpleton like Rob.
Too bad if they were wrong, which we know they were NOT, as Mark Lane
masterfully said, their ACTIONS spoke louder than anything. They
would be direlect in their duty to run there if they thought the shots
came from somewhere else.
> And some of those many "Knoll Stormers" were probably merely playing
> follow-the-leader too, without having a firm opinion as to the exact
> source of the gunfire they heard. Like a good car wreck, rubber-
> necking was bound to follow....and since several people did, indeed,
> initially run toward the Knoll, that's where others went also.
Assumption, assumption, assumption, they did NOT all play "follow the
leader", how ridiculous (and desperate too). What a joker! Sure cops
are going to just run somewhere if they thought shots came from
somewhere else because others are doing it. How insulting.
> I've also asked this in the past too, and I'll ask it again:
>
> If you had just heard gunfire from a rifle in a certain location, and
> therefore were pretty certain that an assassin with a weapon was in
> that area, would you have ANY DESIRE WHATSOEVER to start running
> directly toward the place where the assassin was located?
> Yes, a police officer would want to do that very thing (it's his job,
> naturally). But what about the regular, ordinary citizens who ran
> toward the Knoll that day? Their "job" wasn't to apprehend the
> shooter.
Most people just reacted, and I guess didn't think it out, but they
were right in the fact that the shooter(s) wasn't going to be hanging
around.
> Call me a coward, but the VERY LAST PLACE I'd want to be at that
> precise moment in history (i.e., just seconds after the President of
> the U.S. had been gunned down) would be the exact spot where I thought
> the murderer was located. That's just nuts. And potenial suicide.
COWARD! Of course se know the shooter(s) would not be hanging around.
> Which, again, lends credence to the "They Were Merely Following The
> Leader Toward The Knoll Without Really Knowing If A Killer Was Located
> There" theory.
No it doesn't, this is your kooky thinking. Have you interviewed all
of these people to know this?
> BTW, what evidence of a shooter did those "nearly 50" (??) officers
> find on the Knoll?
Sheriff Decker immediately dispatched his men there and they stayed
there for hours. They found fresh footprints and cigarettes. Of
course they did not find three shells neatly in a row like the TSBD
because NO professional leaves evidence behind (especially when they
take the time to try and hide the rifle).
>
> Vs.:
>
> What evidence of a gunman did the searchers of the 6th Floor of the
> TSBD find?
They found NOTHING real here.
> Again....simple. Even for a kook.
That is what I keep saying, but you never catch on. Hmmm.
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course [we] know the shooter(s) would not be hanging around [on the Knoll]." <<<
Would YOU want to take that chance...and just assume that you weren't
going to get caught in the crossfire of a potential shoot-'em-up
between your make-believe Knoll killer(s) and the police?
Kook.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud, where the shots came from has been in courtrooms for eons, and
it's not taken like a little bird chirping in tall, bushy trees.
CJ
curtjester1
Your absolutely correct. The only saving grace is that you can get
some really good books for cheap these days, especially Texas
Connection, Oswald Talked, Last Dissenting Witness...all great
reads...
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Jul 21, 6:31 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 20 Jul., 21:03, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > it was the Triple Underpass/Knoll area that was the source of the
> > > shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
> > > front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
> > > they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
> > > than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
>
> > > 16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
> > > and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
> > > said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
> > > That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
> > > area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
>
> > > Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> > > plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> > > more cases than not?
>
> > How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?
>
> Is this your new tactic? You can't refute the post based on the WC's
> "evidence" so you attack the writer?
I was questioning your figures. Here's the question again:
"How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?"
> > Stewart Galanor lists (by my count) 18 sheriff deputies here:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Index.htm
>
> > Depository witnesses : 1 (Sweatt)
> > Knoll witnesses : 4 (Boone*, Elkins, Mooney, Weatherford)
> > Not asked : 13
>
> > (*) I would tend to place Boone in the "Not asked" category as he
> > expressed no opinion of his own in regard to the source of the shots.
No comment?
> > Isn't it funny, Rob, that you're suspicious about everything in the
> > WCR and the 26 Volumes, while conspiracy writers like Ira David Wood
> > are trusted implicitly?
>
> I have NOT seen one wrong thing in his chronolgies so why wouldn't I
> believe it? I have seen hundreds of lies in the WC's work so of
> course I don't believe that. If Mr. Wood is incorrect, why isn't he
> sued?
For bias? For sloppiness? For relying implictly on secondary sources?
For not providing source references? I'd wish there were laws against
these things; then we might be able to get some of you bozos off the
streets...
Wood does make mistakes. One was pointed out above, in case you missed
it. He also has the DPD doing 3 paraffin tests of Oswald in a 5 hour
period:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19088c78a7573e8f
> Here's the portion of his Assassination Chronology that you
> paraphrased above:
>
> > <WOOD ON>
>
> > JFK’s limo passes almost twenty sheriff’s deputies standing at the
> > intersection of Main and Houston in front of the Sheriff’s Office.
> > (Later, the deputies will almost unanimously agree that they believe
> > the shots came from the railroad yards located just behind the Grassy
> > Knoll. Of the twenty Dallas Police deputies who will give statements
> > regarding today’s events, “sixteen thought the assassin had fired from
> > the area of the grassy knoll” while three had “no opinion” and one
> > “decided the shots came from” the Book Depository.)
>
> > <WOOD OFF>
>
> > Wood, btw, seems to be relying on data from Harold Feldman's
> > notoriously unreliable 1965 article:
>
> You be WRONG yet again, I got this information from the same place Mr.
> Wood got it, page 435 of "Crossfire" the great, and correct book, by
> Jim Marrs. It looks like "Junior Columbo" is wrong again.
My, you are a dense one. And where do you think Marrs got those
figures from???
OK, I'll help. You got them from Wood, who got them from Marrs, who
got them from Feldman.
muc...@gmail.com
PS: Another example of Wood's (and your) fallibility:
Rob: "At 1:35 am on 11/23/63 LHO is formally charged with the murder
of the president. He is taken before Judge J.P. Johnson (another
irony) and remanded to the Sheriff of Dallas County and there will be
no bond due to it being a capital offense charge."
Wood: "At around 1:35 AM, Lee Harvey Oswald is formally charged with
murdering President John F. Kennedy. LHO is awakened in his cell and
brought before the judge. Judge J. P. Johnson pens across the bottom
of statement charging LHO: '1:35 AM 11-23-63. Bond hearing --
defendant remanded to Sheriff, Dallas County, Texas. No Bond --
Capital offense.'"
Actually, Oswald was arraigned by Justice of the Peace David L.
Johnston.
-Mark
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 22 Jul., 01:48, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 6:31 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Jul., 21:03, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > it was the Triple Underpass/Knoll area that was the source of the
> > > > shots. There were 20 sheriff's deputies watching the motorcade out in
> > > > front of the Sheriff's Office and of all the witnesses in the plaza
> > > > they have to go to the top of the list as they have more experience
> > > > than the common bystander with the sound of gunshots.
>
> > > > 16 said the Underpass/Knoll area was the source, three had no opinion
> > > > and ONLY 1 said the TSBD. Of the other officers asked from the DPD 4
> > > > said the Underpass/knoll area, 4 said the TSBD and 4 gave no opinion.
> > > > That is a 20 to 5 total, or a 4:1 advantage to the Underpass/Knoll
> > > > area as the source of the shots by these experienced men.
>
> > > > Why can't the LNers explain how the most experience witnesses in the
> > > > plaza thought the shots originated from the Underpass/Knoll area in
> > > > more cases than not?
>
> > > How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?
>
> > Is this your new tactic? You can't refute the post based on the WC's
> > "evidence" so you attack the writer?
>
> I was questioning your figures. Here's the question again:
They are NOT my figures, the numbers were listed in Jim Marrs's book.
> "How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?"
>
> > > Stewart Galanor lists (by my count) 18 sheriff deputies here:
Why are you assuming Galanor's are correct?
> > >http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Index.htm
>
> > > Depository witnesses : 1 (Sweatt)
> > > Knoll witnesses : 4 (Boone*, Elkins, Mooney, Weatherford)
> > > Not asked : 13
>
> > > (*) I would tend to place Boone in the "Not asked" category as he
> > > expressed no opinion of his own in regard to the source of the shots.
>
> No comment?
No comment is needed since you are making an assertion that Galanor is
correct, and your assertion of Boone is correct. I see no proof this
set of numbers is correct over what Marrs used so I will stick with
the original set.
> > > Isn't it funny, Rob, that you're suspicious about everything in the
> > > WCR and the 26 Volumes, while conspiracy writers like Ira David Wood
> > > are trusted implicitly?
>
> > I have NOT seen one wrong thing in his chronolgies so why wouldn't I
> > believe it? I have seen hundreds of lies in the WC's work so of
> > course I don't believe that. If Mr. Wood is incorrect, why isn't he
> > sued?
>
> For bias? For sloppiness? For relying implictly on secondary sources?
> For not providing source references? I'd wish there were laws against
> these things; then we might be able to get some of you bozos off the
> streets...
He is working on citing for every line in his chronogies which are
quite cumalative, it is taking time. He has done what NO one else was
willing to do and that is take the whole JFK presidency up to the
current time in terms of assassination details. His first goal was to
get it done, and then fill in cites for publication. What bias? You
don't mind the bias of the WC do you? They began their
"investigation" with a preconceived idea - that LHO was guilty.
>
> Wood does make mistakes. One was pointed out above, in case you missed
> it. He also has the DPD doing 3 paraffin tests of Oswald in a 5 hour
> period:
I have not read every notation as it covers a lot of stuff. Take it
up with him if you must, but I have NOT seen any mistakes. You are
biased in reviewing it as much of it does not fit your phony theory.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19088c78a7573e8f
> > Here's the portion of his Assassination Chronology that you
> > paraphrased above:
>
> > > <WOOD ON>
>
> > > JFK’s limo passes almost twenty sheriff’s deputies standing at the
> > > intersection of Main and Houston in front of the Sheriff’s Office.
> > > (Later, the deputies will almost unanimously agree that they believe
> > > the shots came from the railroad yards located just behind the Grassy
> > > Knoll. Of the twenty Dallas Police deputies who will give statements
> > > regarding today’s events, “sixteen thought the assassin had fired from
> > > the area of the grassy knoll” while three had “no opinion” and one
> > > “decided the shots came from” the Book Depository.)
>
> > > <WOOD OFF>
>
> > > Wood, btw, seems to be relying on data from Harold Feldman's
> > > notoriously unreliable 1965 article:
>
> > You be WRONG yet again, I got this information from the same place Mr.
> > Wood got it, page 435 of "Crossfire" the great, and correct book, by
> > Jim Marrs. It looks like "Junior Columbo" is wrong again.
>
> My, you are a dense one. And where do you think Marrs got those
> figures from???
Prove he got them from Feldman. He does NOT mention him as the
source.
> OK, I'll help. You got them from Wood, who got them from Marrs, who
> got them from Feldman.
Wrong, and I'm the dense one. I got them from Marrs, NOT Wood, that
is your assumption, and he does NOT cite Feldman as the source. You
are guessing as usual.
> > > <FELDMAN ON>
>
> > > We have found ten deputies of the sheriff's office who were on
> > > assignment at the assassination scene who were not called on for
> > > evidence. Most of them would, probably, have felt and reacted like the
> > > twenty recorded deputies. Of these twenty, only one decided the shots
> > > came from the TSBDB, three gave no opinion, and sixteen thought this
> > > assassin had fired from the area of the grassy knoll.
>
> > > <FELDMAN OFF>
>
> > >http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
>
> > > -Mark- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Wow, that is as bad as lying about a man committing a couple of
murders when YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE AND NO MOTIVE.
LOL!!!!
muc...@gmail.com
So, you admit that Wood can't be trusted implicitly?
Bud
No, it isn`t idiot. They provided information. The only way to look
at information is in the proper context. So, before the information is
of any use, it must first be established that people accurately
pinpoint the location of sound when they don`t see the source. Can you
do that?
muc...@gmail.com
Don't blame Marrs. You made the assertion, whether you were parroting
him or not.
> > "How did you arrive at those figures, Rob?"
>
> > > > Stewart Galanor lists (by my count) 18 sheriff deputies here:
>
> Why are you assuming Galanor's are correct?
I don't. But at least he provides citations that can be checked out.
Does Marrs?
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/Index.htm
>
> > > > Depository witnesses : 1 (Sweatt)
> > > > Knoll witnesses : 4 (Boone*, Elkins, Mooney, Weatherford)
> > > > Not asked : 13
>
> > > > (*) I would tend to place Boone in the "Not asked" category as he
> > > > expressed no opinion of his own in regard to the source of the shots.
>
> > No comment?
>
> No comment is needed since you are making an assertion that Galanor is
> correct, and your assertion of Boone is correct. I see no proof this
> set of numbers is correct over what Marrs used so I will stick with
> the original set.
I was asking you to explain your numbers, Rob. You can't, can you?
Why should we assume that your numbers are more accurate than
Galanor's? At least he provides citations that can easily be checked
out. Does Marrs?
> > > > Isn't it funny, Rob, that you're suspicious about everything in the
> > > > WCR and the 26 Volumes, while conspiracy writers like Ira David Wood
> > > > are trusted implicitly?
>
> > > I have NOT seen one wrong thing in his chronolgies so why wouldn't I
> > > believe it? I have seen hundreds of lies in the WC's work so of
> > > course I don't believe that. If Mr. Wood is incorrect, why isn't he
> > > sued?
>
> > For bias? For sloppiness? For relying implictly on secondary sources?
> > For not providing source references? I'd wish there were laws against
> > these things; then we might be able to get some of you bozos off the
> > streets...
>
> He is working on citing for every line in his chronogies which are
> quite cumalative, it is taking time. He has done what NO one else was
> willing to do and that is take the whole JFK presidency up to the
> current time in terms of assassination details. His first goal was to
> get it done, and then fill in cites for publication. What bias? You
> don't mind the bias of the WC do you? They began their
> "investigation" with a preconceived idea - that LHO was guilty.
Conniving bastards.
> > Wood does make mistakes. One was pointed out above, in case you missed
> > it. He also has the DPD doing 3 paraffin tests of Oswald in a 5 hour
> > period:
>
> I have not read every notation as it covers a lot of stuff. Take it
> up with him if you must, but I have NOT seen any mistakes. You are
> biased in reviewing it as much of it does not fit your phony theory.
Do you really think those figures are accurate? That Oswald was
paraffin tested 3 times in 5 hours? That he was arraigned by "Judge J.
P. Johnson"?
Tell me, Rob, are you in any way related to Mr. Wood?
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/19088c78a7573e8f
> >
> > > Here's the portion of his Assassination Chronology that you
> > > paraphrased above:
>
> > > > <WOOD ON>
>
> > > > JFK’s limo passes almost twenty sheriff’s deputies standing at the
> > > > intersection of Main and Houston in front of the Sheriff’s Office.
> > > > (Later, the deputies will almost unanimously agree that they believe
> > > > the shots came from the railroad yards located just behind the Grassy
> > > > Knoll. Of the twenty Dallas Police deputies who will give statements
> > > > regarding today’s events, “sixteen thought the assassin had fired from
> > > > the area of the grassy knoll” while three had “no opinion” and one
> > > > “decided the shots came from” the Book Depository.)
>
> > > > <WOOD OFF>
>
> > > > Wood, btw, seems to be relying on data from Harold Feldman's
> > > > notoriously unreliable 1965 article:
>
> > > You be WRONG yet again, I got this information from the same place Mr.
> > > Wood got it, page 435 of "Crossfire" the great, and correct book, by
> > > Jim Marrs. It looks like "Junior Columbo" is wrong again.
>
> > My, you are a dense one. And where do you think Marrs got those
> > figures from???
>
> Prove he got them from Feldman. He does NOT mention him as the
> source.
Then tell me what his source is.
> > OK, I'll help. You got them from Wood, who got them from Marrs, who
> > got them from Feldman.
>
> Wrong, and I'm the dense one. I got them from Marrs, NOT Wood, that
> is your assumption, and he does NOT cite Feldman as the source. You
> are guessing as usual.
I frankly don't care which secondary source you obtained the numbers
from. Try to think for yourself for once.