Why Were Bonnie Ray Williams & co. Apparently Unconcerned re the Possibility of Being Blown away?
dcwi...@netscape.net
re the Fifth Floor Gang (copr Barb J). Why did they seem so
unconcerned, personally, about the fact that there was a sniper with
a
rifle on the floor above them? Oh, yes, they established that he was
at the window--sounds of shooting, falling shells, clicks, debris,
etc. But after that, they seem blithely unconcerned re the shooter.
Ball: Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
Williams: No, I didn't.
Ball: Did you pay any attention to that?
Williams: No, sir.
Ball: Were you paying any attention whether or not there was anyone
up above?
Williams: No, sir. We wasn't paying any attention.
(v3p181)
They're concerned only with the activity *below*. Not with the
sniper
whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
their heads. It's as if Lee Harvey Oswald or George Harvey Bone or
whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. Or as if they knew
before they made any statements that the shooter had stowed his gun
away before leaving, hence was harmless. (Unless he had a sidearm.)
Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? (Norman: "I
don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
Presidents, hence they were safe. Or they never heard a thing from
the floor above....
dw
Bud
TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> In the back of my mind, there's always been a nagging little question
> re the Fifth Floor Gang (copr Barb J). Why did they seem so
> unconcerned, personally, about the fact that there was a sniper with
> a
> rifle on the floor above them? Oh, yes, they established that he was
> at the window--sounds of shooting, falling shells, clicks, debris,
> etc. But after that, they seem blithely unconcerned re the shooter.
> Ball: Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
> Williams: No, I didn't.
> Ball: Did you pay any attention to that?
> Williams: No, sir.
> Ball: Were you paying any attention whether or not there was anyone
> up above?
> Williams: No, sir. We wasn't paying any attention.
> (v3p181)
>
> They're concerned only with the activity *below*. Not with the
> sniper
> whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
> their heads. It's as if Lee Harvey Oswald or George Harvey Bone or
> whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. Or as if they knew
> before they made any statements that the shooter had stowed his gun
> away before leaving, hence was harmless. (Unless he had a sidearm.)
Could be they were confused, had little information to go on, and
were looking out the window at the commotion in an attempt to gather
more information.
> Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? (Norman: "I
> don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
>
> Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
>
> Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> Presidents, hence they were safe. Or they never heard a thing from
> the floor above....
Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
expectations, it`s always reality that I suspect. The kooks think this
is a creative writing exercise, and when they don`t like how something
in evidence, they re-write it to their satisfaction. Always with a
happy ending, poor Oz being picked on by everyone.
> dw
Neil Coburn
Neil Coburn
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Bonnie Ray and freinds would have run down the stairs..
> Neil Coburn
We've read that story so often, yes, it seems like it must have
happened. But Williams was never on the SW side of the 5th floor.
Someone, after that first weekend, had to tell him that, Bonnie Ray,
you know you can't see the stairs, there's box-laden shelves in the
way....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>
swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
Nice to be able to take everything at face value, eh, Bud, & not have
to worry about possible alternate scenarios. Just believe everything
you're spoonfed.... And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle. In fact, they
were enrolled *solely* to report that "information" (hulls falling
etc.), not to follow-up with anything remotely realistic about what
individuals in that situation might do afterwards....
>
> > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> > anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? (Norman: "I
> > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
> > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
> > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> > Presidents, hence they were safe. Or they never heard a thing from
> > the floor above....
>
> Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
> expectations
Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
, it`s always reality that I suspect. The kooks think this
> is a creative writing exercise, and when they don`t like how something
> in evidence, they re-write it to their satisfaction. Always with a
> happy ending, poor Oz being picked on by everyone.
>
>
> > dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:46�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > � �TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> > suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
> >
> He was expecting to meet someone else there, apparently, & when he saw
> swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
Yah, difference is that Oswald had armed men right in front of him
and attacked them, and Williams and friends only could deduce that
there might be an armed man in their building. Entirely different
situations, one is like being at the zoo, and the other is like being
in the lion`s cage at the zoo.
It tends to prevent one from saying idiotic things.
> Just believe everything
> you're spoonfed....
Just spend your mortality trying to make the actions of ordinary
people seem strange, mysterious or suspicious.
>And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
> guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle.
Once the shooting stopped, they had no further information coming
from that source. You are looking at this from the outside, knowing
all that went on. They didn`t have that luxury.
> In fact, they
> were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
lie? Because things of this substance like this is what you need to
support these fantastic claims, not what you are attempting to build
from. Conspiracies are people doing things, and you have to show that
they occurred, not just imagine they didi.
> (hulls falling
> etc.), not to follow-up with anything remotely realistic about what
> individuals in that situation might do afterwards....
They were ordinary people taking a break from work to watch the
President go by. What Williams and company did when shots were fired
and Kennedy was hit is exactly what they would do under those
circumstance, we don`t need to second guess, they did just what they
do ander those conditions.
Some people dove for cover down on Dealy, some didn`t. Does this
show the ones that didn`t are acting suspicious? Kooks think people
should act according to what they think they would have done under the
same circumstances. They are idiots.
> > > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> > > anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? �(Norman: �"I
> > > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
> >
> > > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
> >
> > > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> > > Presidents, hence they were safe. �Or they never heard a thing from
> > > the floor above....
> >
> > � � Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
> > expectations
>
> Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
> didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
Why not? He worked there. He helped flloor that floor previous to
moving up to the sixth. I think he was familiar with the building.
That quote saying Williams couldn`t see the stairs from that
corner, that was the FBI you were quoting, not Williams directly,
right?
> in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
> that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
> reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
Then the answer to the window openning is an unknown, a trouble
spot, something for which there is not enough information on record to
resolve. That doesn`t mean you get to re-write the event to your own
liking.
Ben Holmes
dcwi...@netscape.net says...
>
>On Jun 8, 3:46=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> =A0 =A0TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
>> blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
>> by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
>> suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>>
>He was expecting to meet someone else there, apparently, & when he saw
>swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
>>
>>
>>
>> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>> > In the back of my mind, there's always been a nagging little question
>> > unconcerned, personally, about the fact that there was a sniper with
>> > a
>> > at the window--sounds of shooting, falling shells, clicks, debris,
>> > Ball: =A0Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
>> > Williams: =A0No, I didn't.
>> > Ball: =A0Did you pay any attention to that?
>> > Williams: =A0No, sir.
>> > Ball: =A0Were you paying any attention whether or not there was anyone
>> > up above?
>> > Williams: =A0No, sir. =A0We wasn't paying any attention.
>> > (v3p181)
>>
>> > They're concerned only with the activity *below*. =A0Not with the
>> > sniper
>> > whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
>> > whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. =A0Or as if they knew
>> > before they made any statements that the shooter =A0had stowed his gun
>> > away before leaving, hence was harmless. =A0(Unless he had a sidearm.)
>>
>> =A0 =A0Could be they were confused, had little information to go on, and
>> were looking out the window at the commotion in an attempt to gather
>> more information.
>
>Nice to be able to take everything at face value, eh, Bud, & not have
>to worry about possible alternate scenarios. Just believe everything
>you're spoonfed.... And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
>guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle. In fact, they
>were enrolled *solely* to report that "information" (hulls falling
>etc.), not to follow-up with anything remotely realistic about what
>individuals in that situation might do afterwards....
>>
>> > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
>> > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>>
>> > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>>
>> > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
>> > the floor above....
>>
>> Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
>> expectations
CT'ers have no "expectations," they merely follow the actual evidence. It is,
indeed, the LNT'ers & trolls that have "expectations," the WCR supplied 'em.
But sadly, no LNT'er yet has been able to explain why the WC and HSCA simply
lied about their own evidence.
>Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
>didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
>in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
>that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
>reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
Buddy, like all the trolls & LNT'ers... are forced to run away from the
evidence. It simply doesn't support their faith.
Bud
Listen, Pussy, any time you want to discuss the case with me, just
take me off your killfile list, and I`m make you look as bad as I did
before you put me on it.
Now, as for what you interjected your two cents into, you obviously
don`t read the drivel your fellow CTers have been putting out lately.
dw, in this post, has offered his expectations of what Williams,
Jarman and Norman should have done as evidence that something
suspicious happened. robcap and CJ have offered their expectations of
Postal`s actions as evidence she didn`t see what she said she saw. I
suggest you get up to speed on things before embarrassing yourself
with ignorant comments.
> It is,
> indeed, the LNT'ers & trolls that have "expectations," the WCR supplied 'em.
The WCR supplied reasonable conclusions, something you kooks just
can`t.
> But sadly, no LNT'er yet has been able to explain why the WC and HSCA simply
> lied about their own evidence.
Nor have you been able to establish this claim as fact. You can`t
do that with repetition alone. I`ve explained before what you need to
establish your contentions, it`s pretty simple. Say the "Chaney wasn`t
called" issue, you just produce a WC aide who says Chaney wasn`t
called because what he would say might conflict with the official
conclusions, or perhaps a memo or some other correspondance between
two WC members saying they were not going to call Chaney for fear of
what he might say, or something along those lines. In other words,
something from the inside, not you on the outside saying things don`t
add up to you. You have hundreds of these acts of conspiracy occurring
all over, involving thousands of people, yet no one is coming clean on
their involvement after all these decades. I`m here to tell you thats
just not possible.
> >Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
> >didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
> >in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
> >that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
> >reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
>
> Buddy, like all the trolls & LNT'ers... are forced to run away from the
> evidence.
I`m here, you hide from me, Pussy. Come out and play, I`m sick of
matching wits with these second-string retards.
> It simply doesn't support their faith.
I really don`t need to comment about dw`s game playing with the
evidence at all. What he is offering can support the weight of the
amazing and fanatstic tales he is weaving. If they could, he wouldn`t
be telling them here, he`d be talking to a book publisher or the
authorities.
Bud
> take me off your killfile list, and I`ll make you look as bad as I did
Er, that should have been "can`t`", not "can".
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
I'd put it more like, offering evidence that they didn't do what they
said they did. But, yes, what they actually did do is a little harder
to clarify....
dw
The latter is a possible goal, but before that, a trip to a few cities
in Texas, which I can't do now....
>
>
>
> > >, it`s always reality that I suspect. The kooks think this
> > >> is a creative writing exercise, and when they don`t like how something
> > >> in evidence, they re-write it to their satisfaction. Always with a
> > >> happy ending, poor Oz being picked on by everyone.
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net says...
>
> > support the weight of the
> > amazing and fanatstic tales he is weaving. If they could, he wouldn`t
> > be telling them here, he`d be talking to a book publisher or the
> > authorities.
>
> > > >, it`s always reality that I suspect. The kooks think this
> > > >> is a creative writing exercise, and when they don`t like how something
> > > >> in evidence, they re-write it to their satisfaction. Always with a
> > > >> happy ending, poor Oz being picked on by everyone.
>
Bud
Yah, you did that too, with th window and such, but you were also
offering their reactions to the situation as evidence of suspicious
activity. In other words, you were comparing your expectations of what
you feel they should have done against what they actually did do. Ben
said CT have no "expectations", so I was clarifying the point.
> But, yes, what they actually did do is a little harder
> to clarify....
If there was a murder on a residential street, you`d focus on the
neighbors reactions to the murder instead of the murder itself. If
there was a blood trail or some such leading to the neighbos, yah, but
not just because you paranoid, and see plotters everywhere.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 3:46�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > � �TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> > > suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>
> > He was expecting to meet someone else there, apparently, & when he saw
> > swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
>
> Yah, difference is that Oswald had armed men right in front of him
> and attacked them, and Williams and friends only could deduce that
> there might be an armed man in their building.
The Warren Report seemed to like their "evidence" that there was an
armed shooter above them....
Hasn't prevented you....
> > Just believe everything
> > you're spoonfed....
>
> Just spend your mortality trying to make the actions of ordinary
> people seem strange, mysterious or suspicious.
>
> >And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
> > guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle.
>
> Once the shooting stopped, they had no further information coming
> from that source. You are looking at this from the outside, knowing
> all that went on. They didn`t have that luxury.
Apparently, they did. Otherwise, Williams would not have corrected
his initial stance re being able to see anyone coming up the stairs
>
> > In fact, they
> > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
>
> Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> lie?
Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
say things like, Williams led the supposed run to the west side, &
that Jarman opened that west window. These *inaccuracies were
*supported* by the suppression of those photos....
Because things of this substance like this is what you need to
> support these fantastic claims, not what you are attempting to build
> from. Conspiracies are people doing things, and you have to show that
> they occurred, not just imagine they didi.
>
> > (hulls falling
> > etc.), not to follow-up with anything remotely realistic about what
> > individuals in that situation might do afterwards....
>
> They were ordinary people taking a break from work to watch the
> President go by. What Williams and company did when shots were fired
> and Kennedy was hit is exactly what they would do under those
> circumstance, we don`t need to second guess, they did just what they
> do ander those conditions.
On some counts, we not only need to *second guess*, we need to correct
them--Williams *didn't* lead the run to the west side, & Jarman didn't
open that window. We know that much--oh, yes, someone might have done
those things, but they didn't.
> Some people dove for cover down on Dealy, some didn`t. Does this
> show the ones that didn`t are acting suspicious? Kooks think people
> should act according to what they think they would have done under the
> same circumstances. They are idiots.
Good proof.
>
> > > > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> > > > anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? �(Norman: �"I
> > > > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
> > > > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
> > > > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> > > > Presidents, hence they were safe. �Or they never heard a thing from
> > > > the floor above....
>
> > > � � Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
> > > expectations
>
> > Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
> > didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
>
> Why not? He worked there. He helped flloor that floor previous to
> moving up to the sixth. I think he was familiar with the building.
Then you're saying that he wasn't just guessing, he was lying...?
>
> That quote saying Williams couldn`t see the stairs from that
> corner, that was the FBI you were quoting, not Williams directly,
> right?
Out goes with FBI, along with the Warren Report! Tho I can't wholly
agree with you on this. Williams had to correct himself on a number
of points, & kept changing his testimony. I think the fault here
belongs more to W. In his first, signed affidavit, on 11/22, he says,
"We took the ELEVATOR to the 4th floor". By the time of the hearings,
he's saying (in response to Ball's "How did you go down?") "By
STAIRS". (p182) And he's being quoted directly....
>
> > in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
> > that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
> > reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
>
> Then the answer to the window openning is an unknown, a trouble
> spot, something for which there is not enough information on record to
> resolve. That doesn`t mean you get to re-write the event to your own
> liking.
>
The photos *rewrote* a portion of the testimony of Williams &
Jarman....
Bud
> On Jun 9, 4:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 3:46�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > � �TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > > by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> > > > suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>
> > > He was expecting to meet someone else there, apparently, & when he saw
> > > swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
>
> > Yah, difference is that Oswald had armed men right in front of him
> > and attacked them, and Williams and friends only could deduce that
> > there might be an armed man in their building.
>
> The Warren Report seemed to like their "evidence" that there was an
> armed shooter above them....
The WC had a lot more to go on. Witnesses outside. The physical
evidence found on the 6th floor. These guys had little, apparently
they looked out the ront windows trying to get more information.
It`s only a tendency.
> > > Just believe everything
> > > you're spoonfed....
>
> > Just spend your mortality trying to make the actions of ordinary
> > people seem strange, mysterious or suspicious.
>
> > >And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
> > > guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle.
>
> > Once the shooting stopped, they had no further information coming
> > from that source. You are looking at this from the outside, knowing
> > all that went on. They didn`t have that luxury.
>
> Apparently, they did. Otherwise, Williams would not have corrected
> his initial stance re being able to see anyone coming up the stairs
How can you be sure that was his initial stance? That quote about
standing where he would see someone coming down was the FBI`s
interpretation of the information he provided. When he spoke in his
own words, he denied saying that. Things are sometimes misinterpreted,
I`d take the words straight from the horses mouth.
> > > In fact, they
> > > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
>
> > Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> > they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> > lie?
>
> Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
> Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
> say things like, Williams led the supposed run to the west side, &
> that Jarman opened that west window. These *inaccuracies were
> *supported* by the suppression of those photos....
You assume what you can`t prove. You can these things were done for
the reasons you give all day, or in this case, every day for decades.
What you can`t do is establish the motivations you assign.
> Because things of this substance like this is what you need to
>
> > support these fantastic claims, not what you are attempting to build
> > from. Conspiracies are people doing things, and you have to show that
> > they occurred, not just imagine they didi.
>
> > > (hulls falling
> > > etc.), not to follow-up with anything remotely realistic about what
> > > individuals in that situation might do afterwards....
>
> > They were ordinary people taking a break from work to watch the
> > President go by. What Williams and company did when shots were fired
> > and Kennedy was hit is exactly what they would do under those
> > circumstance, we don`t need to second guess, they did just what they
> > do ander those conditions.
>
> On some counts, we not only need to *second guess*, we need to correct
> them--Williams *didn't* lead the run to the west side, & Jarman didn't
> open that window. We know that much--oh, yes, someone might have done
> those things, but they didn't.
>
> > Some people dove for cover down on Dealy, some didn`t. Does this
> > show the ones that didn`t are acting suspicious? Kooks think people
> > should act according to what they think they would have done under the
> > same circumstances. They are idiots.
>
> Good proof.
I claimed this is proof of something? I tried an application of
reason on you, but I really didn`t expect positive results.
But, if they actions of the people outside are not indicative of
suspicious behavior, why the people inside? I can claim anyone outside
not diving for cover is acting suspiciously. I set up the expectation
of what they should be doing, I judge them suspicious for not
fulfilling my expectations. The reason you see kooks scratching for
these things is because they don`t have, and will never have, the kind
of support for their fantastic ideas they need. They didn`t yesterday,
and they won`t tomorrow, so why do they bother?
> > > > > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> > > > > anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? �(Norman: �"I
> > > > > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
> > > > > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
> > > > > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> > > > > Presidents, hence they were safe. �Or they never heard a thing from
> > > > > the floor above....
>
> > > > � � Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
> > > > expectations
>
> > > Reality conflicted with the testimony of Williams & Jarman. Williams
> > > didn't know what someone in the SW corner of the 5th floor would see,
>
> > Why not? He worked there. He helped flloor that floor previous to
> > moving up to the sixth. I think he was familiar with the building.
>
> Then you're saying that he wasn't just guessing, he was lying...?
It really doesn`t matter. You pretend one line from the record
trumps all other information. What you need is these guys guarding the
stairway in such a manner as that no one could get by them, and
looking nowhere else but the stairs (you also need to show the gunman
couldn`t have descended before they got over there, there is a photo
taken after the gunman left the 6th floor window, but these guys are
still at the windows they watched the President go by from) . That
doesn`t exist, so you`ll never get the real support you need for the
claim you made in the header.
> > That quote saying Williams couldn`t see the stairs from that
> > corner, that was the FBI you were quoting, not Williams directly,
> > right?
>
> Out goes with FBI, along with the Warren Report!
Did you establish it to be impossible for the FBI to misinterpret
the information a witness was giving? I never thought that to be the
case.
> Tho I can't wholly
> agree with you on this. Williams had to correct himself on a number
> of points, & kept changing his testimony.
Instead of offering this as evidence of something sinister,
shouldn`t you first determine whether or not this is something common
to human beings?
> I think the fault here
> belongs more to W. In his first, signed affidavit, on 11/22, he says,
> "We took the ELEVATOR to the 4th floor". By the time of the hearings,
> he's saying (in response to Ball's "How did you go down?") "By
> STAIRS". (p182) And he's being quoted directly....
No doubt, there are a lot of contradictions in what they related. I
think Norman (or was it Jarman?) had Williams out from with Jarman and
himself before heading up to the 5th.
> > > in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
> > > that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
> > > reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
>
> > Then the answer to the window openning is an unknown, a trouble
> > spot, something for which there is not enough information on record to
> > resolve. That doesn`t mean you get to re-write the event to your own
> > liking.
>
> The photos *rewrote* a portion of the testimony of Williams &
> Jarman....
You used the window being open as a green light to start changing
all the activity the described doing inside (like looking out onto the
knoll).
tomnln
they were running in the WRONG Direction?
(to the Grassy Knoll)
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:de38e2b5-ad5d-403b...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jun 11, 2:05 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 3:46�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > � �TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > > > by armed police? Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> > > > > suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>
> > > > He was expecting to meet someone else there, apparently, & when he saw
> > > > swarms of cops, he panicked. Different situation anyway....
>
> > > Yah, difference is that Oswald had armed men right in front of him
> > > and attacked them, and Williams and friends only could deduce that
> > > there might be an armed man in their building.
>
> > The Warren Report seemed to like their "evidence" that there was an
> > armed shooter above them....
>
> The WC had a lot more to go on. Witnesses outside. The physical
> evidence found on the 6th floor. These guys had little, apparently
> they looked out the ront windows trying to get more information.
>
Norman, then (later) on Williams; the clicks & the sounds of cascading
hulls; Williams saying he heard shots from right above. Only Jarman
seems not to have contributed much....
day? Here are passages from his 11/22 signed affidavit which, as I'm
sure you know, were discarded, or contradicted by his testimony before
the Commission:
"I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank & Junior....
We stayed there & in a little while some officers came up. We took
the elevator to the 4th floor. We stayed there a while & then went on
out."
In '64, tho, W testified that he first went to the 6th floor, *then*
joined Norman & Jarman. He testified he saw only the tip of the
helmet of *one* officer. Stairs. Norman & Jarman testified that they
"went on out" & came back in. W testified that he was later *taken*
out escorted by police. At any rate, they did not go on to testify
that they *all* "went on out" together.... In fact, his 11/22
affidavit makes it sound as if they did everything together.
Apparently, that story was thot to have bugs....
dw
> > > > In fact, they
> > > > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
>
> > > Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> > > they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> > > lie?
>
> > Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
> > Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
> > say things like, Williams led the supposed run to the west side, &
> > that Jarman opened that west window. These *inaccuracies were
> > *supported* by the suppression of those photos....
>
> You assume what you can`t prove. You can these things were done for
> the reasons you give all day, or in this case, every day for decades.
> What you can`t do is establish the motivations you assign.
>
Let's just boil it down to: W & J said certain things; certain photos
would have shown that these things were not true; said photos didn't
show up for 30 years....
Let's rephrase that: The author of this section of the WR needed
"these guys guarding the stairway..." etc., instead of just: O would
have been heading down while WN&J were looking out the west window.
But the author was perhaps wrong for (a) the reasons you state, & (b)
because they weren't looking out " " " (because Williams was
unfamiliar with that area)....
>
> > > That quote saying Williams couldn`t see the stairs from that
> > > corner, that was the FBI you were quoting, not Williams directly,
> > > right?
>
> > Out goes with FBI, along with the Warren Report!
>
> Did you establish it to be impossible for the FBI to misinterpret
> the information a witness was giving? I never thought that to be the
> case.
>
In the case of Williams, we don't have an instance of the FBI proved
to have misinterpreted; but we do have several instances (above) of
Williams seemingly contradicting himself....
> > Tho I can't wholly
> > agree with you on this. Williams had to correct himself on a number
> > of points, & kept changing his testimony.
>
> Instead of offering this as evidence of something sinister,
> shouldn`t you first determine whether or not this is something common
> to human beings?
My point was, he was all over the depository map. More likely that
*he* changed his story than that the poor FBI misquoted him
>
> > I think the fault here
> > belongs more to W. In his first, signed affidavit, on 11/22, he says,
> > "We took the ELEVATOR to the 4th floor". By the time of the hearings,
> > he's saying (in response to Ball's "How did you go down?") "By
> > STAIRS". (p182) And he's being quoted directly....
>
> No doubt, there are a lot of contradictions in what they related. I
> think Norman (or was it Jarman?) had Williams out from with Jarman and
> himself before heading up to the 5th.
Jarman.
>
> > > > in reality, in the direction of the stairs/elevators, & the window
> > > > that the two said Jarman opened after the shooting was actually, in
> > > > reality, Bud, opened several minutes *before* the shooting.
>
> > > Then the answer to the window openning is an unknown, a trouble
> > > spot, something for which there is not enough information on record to
> > > resolve. That doesn`t mean you get to re-write the event to your own
> > > liking.
>
> > The photos *rewrote* a portion of the testimony of Williams &
> > Jarman....
>
> You used the window being open as a green light to start changing
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You are proving my point, dw. Since nobody in a million years would
think these guys were suspects in this murder, everything they
contributed, even the discrepancies and inaccurate parts, must be
normal.
> > > > > In fact, they
> > > > > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
> >
> > > > Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> > > > they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> > > > lie?
> >
> > > Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
> > > Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
> > > say things like, Williams led the supposed run to the west side, &
> > > that Jarman opened that west window. These *inaccuracies were
> > > *supported* by the suppression of those photos....
> >
> > You assume what you can`t prove. You can these things were done for
> > the reasons you give all day, or in this case, every day for decades.
> > What you can`t do is establish the motivations you assign.
> >
> Let's just boil it down to: W & J said certain things; certain photos
> would have shown that these things were not true; said photos didn't
> show up for 30 years....
Isn`t it just portions of the photos that weren`t circulated? You
can`t show that the cropped out portions we`re withheld for nefarious
reasons. You can say t all day, you just can`t establish these
motivations you assign.
You may be right, perhaps the WC should have worded it differently.
I`d have wrote "For whatever reason, they didn`t see Oz descending the
stairs". The "whatever reason" could be they were looking elsewhere at
the time, their line of sight to the stairs was blocked at the time,
or Oz had descended before they got over to the west side. The WC is
often guilty of trying to sound as if they had definative answers
where they didin`t. But criticism of a large work like this is easy to
do.
> > > > That quote saying Williams couldn`t see the stairs from that
> > > > corner, that was the FBI you were quoting, not Williams directly,
> > > > right?
> >
> > > Out goes with FBI, along with the Warren Report!
> >
> > Did you establish it to be impossible for the FBI to misinterpret
> > the information a witness was giving? I never thought that to be the
> > case.
> >
> In the case of Williams, we don't have an instance of the FBI proved
> to have misinterpreted; but we do have several instances (above) of
> Williams seemingly contradicting himself....
We may have both.
> > > Tho I can't wholly
> > > agree with you on this. Williams had to correct himself on a number
> > > of points, & kept changing his testimony.
> >
> > Instead of offering this as evidence of something sinister,
> > shouldn`t you first determine whether or not this is something common
> > to human beings?
>
> My point was, he was all over the depository map. More likely that
> *he* changed his story than that the poor FBI misquoted him
I think that he had a clear line of sight to the stairs is unlikely
regardless of what he told the FBI.
dcwi...@netscape.net
run" anything like they supposedly did. BRW did not lead the run.
Jarman did not open the window. BRW did not know what could be seen
from the west side windows--originally, he said he could see the
stairs, but not the elevator; finally, he said just the opposite. He
saw or heard something he wasn't supposed to see or hear--the wrong
person running down from the 6th floor or...
dw
>
>
>
> > > > > > In fact, they
> > > > > > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
>
> > > > > Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> > > > > they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> > > > > lie?
>
> > > > Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
> > > > Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
> > > > say things like, Williams led the supposed run to the west side, &
> > > > that Jarman opened that west window. These *inaccuracies were
> > > > *supported* by the suppression of those photos....
>
> > > You assume what you can`t prove. You can these things were done for
> > > the reasons you give all day, or in this case, every day for decades.
> > > What you can`t do is establish the motivations you assign.
>
> > Let's just boil it down to: W & J said certain things; certain photos
> > would have shown that these things were not true; said photos didn't
> > show up for 30 years....
>
> Isn`t it just portions of the photos that weren`t circulated? You
> can`t show that the cropped out portions we`re withheld for nefarious
> reasons.
Excellent! Yes & no. No--Moorman 3 was withheld in its entirety for
3 decades. Yes--the Powell slide was released in the 70s, but the
left side was cropped--the side which shows the west window already
open before Williams has left his window, indicating that at the least
he didn't lead any run ending in Jarman opening the already-opened
window. "Nefarious" is a subjective word--was it nefarious that the
uncropped Powell, unseen for 3 decades, contradicted the testimony of
Jarman & Williams? The cropping certainly kept the wraps on a piece
of the truth....
dw
Bud
This is totally the product of your imagination. Finding a
difficulty in the evidence doesn`t mean you get to re-write it.
This would be significant, if the crime being investigated was
window opening.
dcwi...@netscape.net
first could not accurately describe the view from the west-side
windows; this suggests that he was not *at* those windows, at any time
around 12:30; it suggests, on the contrary, that he was elsewhere.
And the most likely elsewhere is the area of the stairs & the
elevators. Why would he say that he was someplace where he was not?
Because there was something which he did not want to reveal about the
cast of characters on or near the stairs/elevators circa 12:31....
dw
lazu...@webtv.net
wanted them to tell, and IMHO, especially in a prominent case like a
presidential assassination.
Williams et al were the only earwitnesses within the building itself to
tell of three gunshots above them. Their reports are completely
contradicted by the four lady earwitnesses on the fourth floor, Victoria
Adams et al. They unanimously testified that the sounds of gunfire came
from below and to the right of their position, i.e. the pergola/ grassy
knoll area. They heard nothing from their upper left ( they were only
one floor below Williams et al, and only two floors below the SN).---Old
Laz
Bud
Doesn`t matter, no shots were fired from that floor, and he isn`t a
suspect.
> In sum, Williams at
> first could not accurately describe the view from the west-side
> windows; this suggests that he was not *at* those windows, at any time
> around 12:30; it suggests, on the contrary, that he was elsewhere.
> And the most likely elsewhere is the area of the stairs & the
> elevators. Why would he say that he was someplace where he was not?
> Because there was something which he did not want to reveal about the
> cast of characters on or near the stairs/elevators circa 12:31....
You can drive this fantastic possibility to that conclusion using
weak qualifiers like "suggests" and "likely".
Bud
Er, that should be "can`t". Someday I`ll proofread before sending.
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
> Black witnesses to a crime in Texas circa 1963 told the story the Police
> wanted them to tell, and IMHO, especially in a prominent case like a
> presidential assassination.
And far and away the most likely possibility is that they did give
the police the story they wanted them to tell, there account of what
the saw and heard.
> Williams et al were the only earwitnesses within the building itself to
> tell of three gunshots above them. Their reports are completely
> contradicted by the four lady earwitnesses on the fourth floor, Victoria
> Adams et al. They unanimously testified that the sounds of gunfire came
> from below and to the right of their position, i.e. the pergola/ grassy
> knoll area.
Luckily we had Brennan, who saw the shooter, and directed police to
where the rifle and shells were ultimately found.
>They heard nothing from their upper left ( they were only
> one floor below Williams et al, and only two floors below the SN).---Old
> Laz
Why are you pointing out what bad witnesses these women were?
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Anyone ever hear of the old cliche "Actions speak louder than words?" What did
Williams, Norman & Jarman actually *DO* after hearing the shots?
Bud
> In article <25361-48553EC6-...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
Put distance between themselves and where the shots came from.
dcwi...@netscape.net
man, the 12:37 police-radio message designated the second window from
the end as the source of the shots, & witness Brennan said the shooter
was at a wide-open window. Voila!--Williams, suspect....
dw
> > In sum, Williams at
> > first could not accurately describe the view from the west-side
> > windows; this suggests that he was not *at* those windows, at any time
> > around 12:30; it suggests, on the contrary, that he was elsewhere.
> > And the most likely elsewhere is the area of the stairs & the
> > elevators. Why would he say that he was someplace where he was not?
> > Because there was something which he did not want to reveal about the
> > cast of characters on or near the stairs/elevators circa 12:31....
>
> You can drive this fantastic possibility to that conclusion using
> weak qualifiers like "suggests" and "likely".
>
And you can't explain why Williams did a 180 re the view of the stairs/
elevators....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jun 15, 12:09 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > Black witnesses to a crime in Texas circa 1963 told the story the Police
> > wanted them to tell, and IMHO, especially in a prominent case like a
> > presidential assassination.
>
> And far and away the most likely possibility is that they did give
> the police the story they wanted them to tell, there account of what
> the saw and heard.
>
> > Williams et al were the only earwitnesses within the building itself to
> > tell of three gunshots above them. Their reports are completely
> > contradicted by the four lady earwitnesses on the fourth floor, Victoria
> > Adams et al. They unanimously testified that the sounds of gunfire came
> > from below and to the right of their position, i.e. the pergola/ grassy
> > knoll area.
>
> Luckily we had Brennan, who saw the shooter, and directed police to
> where the rifle and shells were ultimately found.
Yeah--a wide open window. The shells were not necessarily where they
were later photographed since Slick Will picked them up right away
>
> >They heard nothing from their upper left ( they were only
> > one floor below Williams et al, and only two floors below the SN).---Old
> > Laz
>
> Why are you pointing out what bad witnesses these women were?
I thot there was an echo effect in Dealey--bad echo rather than bad
witnesses?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> In article <25361-48553EC6-...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>,
Acted as if no one were above them. Williams even testified that they
didn't give the supposed shooter above them a second thot--check his
testimony!
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
By running towards the one spot--the stairwell/elevators--where they
might run into the person who fired said shots?!? Try again....
David Von Pein
>>> "[Williams, Norman, and Jarman] Acted as if no one were above them. Williams even testified that they didn't give the supposed shooter above them a second [thought]--check his testimony!" <<<
Here we have more typical Kook Logic -- i.e., a conspiracy-happy idiot
gets to decide for himself what the witnesses should or should not
have "thought" in association with the assassination and its
aftermath.
And if the thoughts and/or actions of the witnesses don't meet the
CTer's expectations, which they rarely do of course, then the CT-Kook
gets to make up his own "Why Didn't The Witness Do This?" rules and
berate the innocent witness for not meeting the expectations of the
idiot asking the silly question.*
* = Which, of course, are all expectations that are teeming with
"Monday-morning quarterbacking" hindsight. A similar situation has
played itself out with another conspiracy-giddy halfwit (Rob) in
another thread regarding the testimony of Mary Bledsoe and Ruth Paine:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa7198f5a466188a
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a0950fe0a478a7f8
Rob thinks that Ruth should have behaved differently toward Marina and
Lee Oswald in the weeks and months before the assassination of
President Kennedy.
Robby thinks there's a reason to suspect that Mrs. Paine and Mrs.
Bledsoe were telling one lie after another to the Warren Commission.
The only thing Rob the Idiot has to go on, of course, is a gut feeling
that something's not quite right in the testimony of Bledsoe and
Paine. And, for Rob, this "gut feeling", naturally, is more than
enough of a reason to call the two ladies bald-face liars here on the
World Wide Web.
IOW -- To hell with the actual under-oath testimony (per many a-CTer).
The CTers will merely insert their own suspicions and treat the words
of the witnesses as something totally irrelevant.
Such is the mindset of people like Donald W. and Robby C.
I have a mental picture of Donald Willis poring over the testimony and
affidavits and FBI statements of the TSBD witnesses, in the hopes of
finding something--ANYTHING--that he can latch onto as an
inconsistency or a supposed inaccuracy of some kind. Day & night,
night & day, Willis will never stop until he can place innocent
witnesses like Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman Jr., Harold Norman,
and Danny Arce in the gas chamber (figuratively-speaking).
As another LNer has said in past posts (and it's damn good advice too,
IMO) -- Kooks like Donny and Robby should seek out new hobbies.
Because the one they are currently engaged in involving the JFK
assassination reeks with silliness (not to mention defamation of
character with respect to the scads of innocent people they have no
hesitation in calling "liars", "gunmen", "murderers", and/or
"conspirators").
I hear coin-collecting can be rewarding. (Although Donald and Rob
would probably find some way to screw up that hobby too....probably by
over-examining an original '64 Kennedy half-dollar and insisting the
coin had been counterfeited by David Ferrie.)
lazu...@webtv.net
is more accurate, to admit, everywhere you look there is much
corroborated evidence of conspiracy-Parkland, Dealey Plaza, New Orleans,
Bethesda, Mexico City etc.
Bud
Of course kooks see signs of conspiracy everywhere they look. It`s
one of their defining characteristics.
Bud
Why, you haven`t damaged what I said the first time.
Bud
Witnesses who supply erroneous information are bad witnesses. The
CT`s favorite kind.
Bud
With a bald spot.
> the 12:37 police-radio message designated the second window from
> the end as the source of the shots,
What floor?
> & witness Brennan said the shooter
> was at a wide-open window.
Brennan said the shooter was Oswald.
> Voila!--Williams, suspect....
Williams has an alibi, he watched the parade with two other men,
neither who noticed him firing a rifle.
> dw
>
> > > In sum, Williams at
> > > first could not accurately describe the view from the west-side
> > > windows; this suggests that he was not *at* those windows, at any time
> > > around 12:30; it suggests, on the contrary, that he was elsewhere.
> > > And the most likely elsewhere is the area of the stairs & the
> > > elevators. Why would he say that he was someplace where he was not?
> > > Because there was something which he did not want to reveal about the
> > > cast of characters on or near the stairs/elevators circa 12:31....
>
> > You can drive this fantastic possibility to that conclusion using
> > weak qualifiers like "suggests" and "likely".
>
> And you can't explain why Williams did a 180 re the view of the stairs/
> elevators....
I did give a possible explanation. The FBI misunderstood Williams.
lazu...@webtv.net
even yer hero, slimeballer par excellance Bugliosi, wrote a 1600 page
cinderblock with a mountain of evidence for conspiracy, but one would
have to be a real idiot to think some lawyer with a humongous advance,
that his opinion is better than Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. Crenshaw,Nurse
bell and the dozens of others who were there...laz..not an admirer of
lone nut methods, lies, obfuscation, insults and all the other cheap
tricks....
Bud
> You know Bud-
Never met him.
> you right just like that asshole von pein-
Not true, DVP`s drafts are pristine and near error free, my
submittals are laden with unforced errors. But I did notice your use
of "right", which makes me think I`m addressing Young Retarded Laz,
and not Ancient Retarded Laz, isn`t that write?
>but, that aside
> even yer hero, slimeballer par excellance Bugliosi,
Yah, this is the Seed of Stupidity, Laz the Younger.
> wrote a 1600 page
> cinderblock
The kooks think this "cinderblock" thing is clever. If you kooks
weren`t as busy as autistic elves spawning conspiracy nonsense, he
wouldn`t have needed such a large book to counter the massive crackpot
effort.
>with a mountain of evidence for conspiracy, but one would
> have to be a real idiot to think some lawyer with a humongous advance,
> that his opinion is better than Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. Crenshaw,Nurse
> bell and the dozens of others who were there...
Now, what did I tell you about bad witnesses? Take Bell, for
instance, either she was slightly mistaken about the size of the
bullet fragments she handled, or tens of thousand of unconnected
people were out to get your precious patsy. It`s reasonable beliefs
versus kook idiocy, and being a kook, you will never be able to tell
one from the other.
>laz..not an admirer of
> lone nut methods, lies, obfuscation, insults and all the other cheap
> tricks....
Plain and simple, you have a psychological need for there to be a
conspiracy in this case.
Ben Holmes
>even yer hero, slimeballer par excellance Bugliosi, wrote a 1600 page
>cinderblock with a mountain of evidence for conspiracy, but one would
>have to be a real idiot to think some lawyer with a humongous advance,
>that his opinion is better than Dr. Perry, Dr. Clark, Dr. Crenshaw,Nurse
>bell and the dozens of others who were there...
Au contraire! I was in perfect agreement with Bugliosi when he argued in court
that there had been a conspiracy in the RFK and JFK cases.
>laz..
David Von Pein
>>> "You know Bud- you right just like that asshole von pein." <<<
I love the classic dictionary-based irony that exists within this Laz
retort.
Of course, if Laz were to have written it this way (below), he'd be
100% accurate:
"You know Bud--YOU'RE right, just like that very astute lone-
assassin advocate named David Robert Von Pein. Keep up the good work,
men."
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "[Williams, Norman, and Jarman] Acted as if no one were above them. Williams even testified that they didn't give the supposed shooter above them a second [thought]--check his testimony!" <<<
>
> Here we have more typical Kook Logic -- i.e., a conspiracy-happy idiot
> gets to decide for himself what the witnesses should or should not
> have "thought" in association with the assassination and its
> aftermath.
>
above. Apparently, DVP chose to generalize rather than check BRW's
testimony, to wit:
Ball: Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
B: Did you pay any attention to that?
W: No, sir.
B: Were you paying attention whether or not there was anyone up
above?
W: No, sir--we wasn't paying any attention (v3p181)
Again, I say, W didn't give the supposed shooter a second thought.
And I didn't make that up--W admitted it....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
themselves & *the shooter*, who was actually potentially more
dangerous to them than was the "sniper's nest" ("where the shots came
from")....
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
>
I guess Curry & Decker would be called terrible witnesses--they sent
all their men to the underpass!
dcwi...@netscape.net
Huh? Originally, he just said "colored man"--nothing about a "bald
spot". That came later....
>
> > the 12:37 police-radio message designated the second window from
> > the end as the source of the shots,
>
> What floor?
The only floor in the upper right hand corner (as Hill put it) with an
open 2nd window was on the 5th floor....
>
> > & witness Brennan said the shooter
> > was at a wide-open window.
>
> Brennan said the shooter was Oswald.
At a wide open window! (And he danced around the lineup thing)
> > Voila!--Williams, suspect....
>
> Williams has an alibi, he watched the parade with two other men,
> neither who noticed him firing a rifle.
>
It's November 22, 1963--on that day, what two men corroborated W?
What two men corroborated him the *next* day? What man finally
corroborated W on Sunday? What man still had not corroborated W as
late as Sunday? Monday?
>
>
>
> > dw
>
> > > > In sum, Williams at
> > > > first could not accurately describe the view from the west-side
> > > > windows; this suggests that he was not *at* those windows, at any time
> > > > around 12:30; it suggests, on the contrary, that he was elsewhere.
> > > > And the most likely elsewhere is the area of the stairs & the
> > > > elevators. Why would he say that he was someplace where he was not?
> > > > Because there was something which he did not want to reveal about the
> > > > cast of characters on or near the stairs/elevators circa 12:31....
>
> > > You can drive this fantastic possibility to that conclusion using
> > > weak qualifiers like "suggests" and "likely".
>
> > And you can't explain why Williams did a 180 re the view of the stairs/
> > elevators....
>
> I did give a possible explanation. The FBI misunderstood Williams.
>
Well, you're in the "speculation" box on this one then....
>
> > > > dw
>
> > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > In fact, they
> > > > > > > > > > > > were enrolled *solely* to report that "information"
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you support this extraordinary claim with any of them claiming
> > > > > > > > > > > they were approached to lie, or anyone saying they approached them to
> > > > > > > > > > > lie?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes. That the Powell & Moorman photos were withheld from the
> > > > > > > > > > Commission & suppressed for 3 decades suggests that they were told to
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Again, I say, [BR Williams] didn't give the supposed shooter a second thought." <<<
So what?
We KNOW there WAS a shooter up there above Williams. We know that
there was a shooter on the 6th Floor based on multiple other witnesses
and the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE left behind above Williams (et al).
So what's your fucking point?
Bud
Ben asked a loaded question using his typical dishonest phrasing,
so I gave a loaded answer.
But are we to assume that the folks who ran towards the knoll
cannot be believed that they thought the shots were fired from there?
Bud
Several more good examples.
What exactly did these witnesses witness at that location?
Bud
But it did come.
> > > the 12:37 police-radio message designated the second window from
> > > the end as the source of the shots,
> >
> > What floor?
>
> The only floor in the upper right hand corner (as Hill put it) with an
> open 2nd window was on the 5th floor....
The floor wasn`t named.
> > > & witness Brennan said the shooter
> > > was at a wide-open window.
> >
> > Brennan said the shooter was Oswald.
>
> At a wide open window!
The window wasn`t doing the shooting. Brennan said it was Oswald
doing that.
> (And he danced around the lineup thing)
Yah, but he explained that.
> > > Voila!--Williams, suspect....
> >
> > Williams has an alibi, he watched the parade with two other men,
> > neither who noticed him firing a rifle.
> >
> It's November 22, 1963
No, it`s 2008, and we have information that rules Williams out as a
suspect. There is no good reason to head down these "go-nowhere" blind
alleys.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Williams & co. reported all sorts of Signs, at 12:30, pointing to the
6th floor--rifle reports, falling debris (inside & outside the
building, first on Norman, then on Williams), clicks, falling hulls--
but not one word re 12:31 or later re this "shooter", who mysteriously
vanished from their emotional radar once the shooting was done.
Williams simply made explicit the fact that they seemed wholly
unconcerned re the possibility of an encounter with someone running
down (or riding down) from the 6th floor. Upshot: There was no one
on the 6th floor. As I suggested, above, even the 12:30 Signs from
Above were questionable--the famous debris starts out, on SUnday, the
24th, hitting *Norman* (as per Jarman),& Tuesday, the 26th (as per
Norman), where the "particles of dirt" were hitting him as he stuck
his head *outside* the window--& by the time of the hearings, the
debris is hitting *Williams*, *inside* the building (as I recall), and
as per Barb J, the tale of the clicks/hulls isn't told by Norman for
over a week.
And of course, Jarman doesn't mention being on the 5th floor until the
24th, Norman apparently until the 26th! A lot of time to get their
stories (halfway) straight!
Perhaps the witnesses were just over-eager to contribute something,
anything, to the Shots from Above story, beyond Williams' simple
"shots from just above us". At the least, their joint tale makes one
wonder if there was anyone up there at all....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "Their joint tale makes one wonder if there was anyone up there at all." <<<
You're an idiot.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up above?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Williams: �No, sir. �We wasn't paying any attention.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (v3p181)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're concerned only with the activity *below*. �Not with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sniper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their heads. �It's as if Lee Harvey Oswald or George Harvey Bone or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. �Or as if they knew
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before they made any statements that the shooter �had stowed his gun
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away before leaving, hence was harmless. �(Unless he had a sidearm.)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >werelooking out the window at the commotion in an attempt to gather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more information.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice to be able to take everything at face value, eh, Bud, & not have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to worry about possible alternate scenarios.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It tends to prevent one from saying idiotic things.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hasn't prevented you....
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It`s only a tendency.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just believe everything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're spoonfed....
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just spend your mortality trying to make the actions of ordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people seem strange, mysterious or suspicious.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >And, supposedly, they had the "information" that a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guy was right above them blasting away with a rifle.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the shooting stopped, they had no further information coming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from that source. You are looking at this from the outside, knowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all that went on. They didn`t have that luxury.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently, they did. Otherwise, Williams would not have corrected
> > > > > > > > > > > > his initial stance re being able to see anyone coming up the stairs
>
> > > > > > > > > > > How can you be sure that was his initial stance? That quote about
> > > > > > > > > > > standing where he would see someone coming down was the FBI`s
> > > > > > > > > > > interpretation of the information he provided. When he spoke in his
> > > > > > > > > > > own words, he denied saying that. Things are sometimes misinterpreted,
> > > > > > > > > > > I`d take the words straight from the horses mouth.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Even when the horse says one thing one day, & another thing another
> > > > > > > > > > day? Here are passages from his 11/22 signed affidavit which, as I'm
> > > > > > > > > > the Commission:
> > > > > > > > > > "I went back on the 5th floor with a fellow called Hank & Junior....
> > > > > > > > > > We stayed there & in a little while some officers came up. We took
> > > > > > > > > > the elevator to the 4th floor. We stayed there a while & then went on
> > > > > > > > > > out."
>
> > > > > > > > > > In '64, tho, W testified that he first went to the 6th floor, *then*
> > > > > > > > > > joined Norman & Jarman. He testified he saw only the tip of the
> > > > > > > > > > helmet of *one* officer. Stairs. Norman & Jarman testified that they
> > > > > > > > > > "went on out" & came back in. W testified that he was later *taken*
> > > > > > > > > > out escorted by police. At any rate, they did not go on to testify
> > > > > > > > > > that they *all* "went on out" together.... In fact, his 11/22
> > > > > > > > > > affidavit makes it sound as if they did everything together.
> > > > > > > > > > Apparently, that story was thot to have bugs....
> > > > > > > > > > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > You are proving my point, dw. Since nobody in a million years would
> > > > > > > > > contributed, even the discrepancies and inaccurate parts, must be
> > > > > > > > > normal.
>
> > > > > > > > And yet, and yet.... It seems they could not have made a "west side
> > > > > > > > run" anything like they supposedly did. BRW did not lead the run.
> > > > > > > > Jarman did not open the window. BRW did not know what could be seen
> > > > > > > > from the west side windows--originally, he said he could see the
> > > > > > > > stairs, but not the elevator; finally, he said just the opposite. He
> > > > > > > > saw or heard something he wasn't supposed to see or hear--the wrong
> > > > > > > > person running down from the 6th floor or...
>
> > > > > > > This is totally the product of your imagination. Finding a
> > > > > > > difficulty in the evidence doesn`t mean you get to re-write it.
>
> > > > > > In all 3 cases, *Williams* rewrote the evidence.
>
> > > > > suspect.
>
> > > > He was & is. Witness Euins said the man with the rifle was a black
> > > > man,
>
> > > With a bald spot.
>
> > Huh? Originally, he just said "colored man"--nothing about a "bald
> > spot". That came later....
>
> But it did come.
The point being...?
>
> > > > the 12:37 police-radio message designated the second window from
> > > > the end as the source of the shots,
>
> > > What floor?
>
> > The only floor in the upper right hand corner (as Hill put it) with an
> > open 2nd window was on the 5th floor....
>
> The floor wasn`t named.
It was better than naming a floor--the 5th floor was always said to
have been confused with the 6th floor. But there was only one window
second from the end in the upper right hand corner which was open at
12:30. No confusion, unless you will it....
>
> > > > & witness Brennan said the shooter
> > > > was at a wide-open window.
>
> > > Brennan said the shooter was Oswald.
>
> > At a wide open window!
>
> The window wasn`t doing the shooting. Brennan said it was Oswald
> doing that.
>
> > (And he danced around the lineup thing)
>
> Yah, but he explained that.
Unexplained: Why other witnesses such as Edwards & Fischer weren't
taken to a lineup. One of the two, I forget which, actually watched
the suspect for maybe a minute. Also unexplained: why Brennan &
Sorrels weren't listed, originally, in the 7:20 lineup, then, later
on, were.... Also hilariously unexplained: Why Brennan would even
guess the 6th-floor guy's weight & height when he couldn't see his
whole body! Only thing left out: shoe size....
>
> > > > Voila!--Williams, suspect....
>
> > > Williams has an alibi, he watched the parade with two other men,
> > > neither who noticed him firing a rifle.
>
> > It's November 22, 1963
>
> No, it`s 2008, and we have information that rules Williams out as a
> suspect. There is no good reason to head down these "go-nowhere" blind
> alleys.
>
>
>
> >--on that day, what two men corroborated W?
Answer: nobody!
> > What two men
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Their joint tale makes one wonder if there was anyone up there at all." <<<
>
> You're an idiot.
Is this what Bud means by your perceptive, biting commentary? That
David Von Pein sure can write!
David Von Pein
>>> "Is this what Bud means by your perceptive, biting commentary? That David Von Pein sure can write!" <<<
You're a fucking idiot.
(Did you notice the vast improvement in my writing style today? I did.)
Bud
> On Jun 18, 12:03 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Their joint tale makes one wonder if there was anyone up there at all." <<<
>
> > You're an idiot.
>
> Is this what Bud means by your perceptive, biting commentary?
A perfect example.
> That
> David Von Pein sure can write!
Hit the nail on the head with only three words.
Walt
> In the back of my mind, there's always been a nagging little question
> re the Fifth Floor Gang (copr Barb J). Why did they seem so
> unconcerned, personally, about the fact that there was a sniper with
> a
> rifle on the floor above them? Oh, yes, they established that he was
> at the window--sounds of shooting, falling shells, clicks, debris,
> etc. But after that, they seem blithely unconcerned re the shooter.
> Ball: Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
> Williams: No, I didn't.
> Ball: Did you pay any attention to that?
> Williams: No, sir.
> up above?
> Williams: No, sir. We wasn't paying any attention.
> (v3p181)
>
> They're concerned only with the activity *below*. Not with the
> sniper
> whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
> their heads. It's as if Lee Harvey Oswald or George Harvey Bone or
> whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. Or as if they knew
> before they made any statements that the shooter had stowed his gun
> away before leaving, hence was harmless. (Unless he had a sidearm.)
>
> anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? (Norman: "I
> don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
> Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
Presidents, hence they were safe. Or they never heard a thing from
the floor above....
dw
I'll believe the alternative.......they never heard a thing from the
floor above....
Well not quite..... I believe they did heard a "bang" over their
heads, but it didn't originate from the muzzle of a rifle in the SE
corner window, because no rifle was fired from the SE corner window.
All three of them confirmed that Bonnie Ray Williams got "pieces of
brick", "cement", and "some white plaster like stuff" in his hair when
he had his head out of rhe window while watching JFK pass by on the
street below. That debris in B.R. Williams hair came from a bullet
striking the building above Williams head.
Walt
> TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> by armed police?
Why do you continue to lie when it's ben proven over and over to you
that Oswald never "PULLED A PISTOL" in the theater. Your lying only
proves that you don't have the intellectual integrity to face
facts..... ie; You're a gutless coward.
Silly me, why concern yourself with the only real
> suspect when you have everyone else in Dallas to be suspicious of.
>
>
>
>
>
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > In the back of my mind, there's always been a nagging little question
> > re the Fifth Floor Gang (copr Barb J). Why did they seem so
> > unconcerned, personally, about the fact that there was a sniper with
> > a
> > rifle on the floor above them? Oh, yes, they established that he was
> > at the window--sounds of shooting, falling shells, clicks, debris,
> > etc. But after that, they seem blithely unconcerned re the shooter.
> > Ball: Did you hear anyone going up or down the stairs?
> > Williams: No, I didn't.
> > Ball: Did you pay any attention to that?
> > Williams: No, sir.
> > Ball: Were you paying any attention whether or not there was anyone
> > up above?
> > Williams: No, sir. We wasn't paying any attention.
> > (v3p181)
>
> > They're concerned only with the activity *below*. Not with the
> > sniper
> > whom they might run into on the stairs & who might blast holes in
> > their heads. It's as if Lee Harvey Oswald or George Harvey Bone or
> > whoever disappeared after he fired the shots. Or as if they knew
> > before they made any statements that the shooter had stowed his gun
> > away before leaving, hence was harmless. (Unless he had a sidearm.)
>
> Could be they were confused, had little information to go on, and
> were looking out the window at the commotion in an attempt to gather
> more information.
>
> > Counsel distracts from this question with the nitwit query, Did
> > anybody say anything about going up to the 6th floor? (Norman: "I
> > don't remember anyone" saying any such stupid thing. v3p192)
>
> > Joseph Ball was either a very very brave man or a real moron....
>
> > Perhaps Williams & co. believed that the sniper was only after U.S.
> > Presidents, hence they were safe. Or they never heard a thing from
> > the floor above....
>
> Typical kook response. If reality conflicts with kook
> expectations, it`s always reality that I suspect. The kooks think this
> is a creative writing exercise, and when they don`t like how something
> in evidence, they re-write it to their satisfaction. Always with a
> happy ending, poor Oz being picked on by everyone.
>
>
>
> > dw- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On 8 Jun, 17:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > by armed police?
>
> Why do you continue to lie when it's ben proven over and over to you
> that Oswald never "PULLED A PISTOL" in the theater.
Sure he did, idiot.
> Your lying only
> proves that you don't have the intellectual integrity to face
> facts..... ie; You're a gutless coward.
You are an idiot, who can`t even figure out the easy aspects of the
case. It`s not your fault, though, I`ve heard it said that the elderly
are prone to make up stories.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Yes, yes! Now you seem to be becoming aware of *adjectives*! A
tremendous step forward! I can hardly wait till you discover, say,
*similes*! Maybe, maybe, someday... civility! Naw....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jun 19, 1:47 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 12:03 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Their joint tale makes one wonder if there was anyone up there at all." <<<
>
> > > You're an idiot.
>
> > Is this what Bud means by your perceptive, biting commentary?
>
> A perfect example.
That explains a lot....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Jun 19, 7:59 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Jun, 17:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > by armed police?
>
> > Why do you continue to lie when it's ben proven over and over to you
> > that Oswald never "PULLED A PISTOL" in the theater.
>
> Sure he did, idiot.
>
> > Your lying only
> > proves that you don't have the intellectual integrity to face
> > facts..... ie; You're a gutless coward.
>
> You are an idiot
Plagiarist! That's DVP's phrase....
Bud
> On Jun 19, 2:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:59 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Jun, 17:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > > by armed police?
>
> > > Why do you continue to lie when it's ben proven over and over to you
> > > that Oswald never "PULLED A PISTOL" in the theater.
>
> > Sure he did, idiot.
>
> > > Your lying only
> > > proves that you don't have the intellectual integrity to face
> > > facts..... ie; You're a gutless coward.
>
> > You are an idiot
>
> Plagiarist! That's DVP's phrase....
Nah, DVP said "You`re a fucking idiot".
What do you say, dw, did Oz pull a gun out when he was arrested, or
are you stumped on that one also?
aeffects
> On Jun 20, 2:04 am, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 7:59 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Jun, 17:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > TOP POST: Why wasn`t Oz concerned about the possibility of being
> > > > > blown a away when he slugged a cop and pulled a pistol when surrounded
> > > > > by armed police?
>
> > > > Why do you continue to lie when it's ben proven over and over to you
> > > > that Oswald never "PULLED A PISTOL" in the theater.
>
> > > Sure he did, idiot.
>
> > > > Your lying only
> > > > proves that you don't have the intellectual integrity to face
> > > > facts..... ie; You're a gutless coward.
>
> > > You are an idiot
>
> > Plagiarist! That's DVP's phrase....
>
> Nah, DVP said "You`re a fucking idiot".
omg, Bud the delicious is getting exorcised.... someone oil Dudster's
tinfoil beanie, he's developing that Lone Nut shrill again.... LMFAO