Stairs
Martin Shackelford
folks.....
The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor. She
said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving them
up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape to do
this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the fire
escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs" because
they were pull-down.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Shiloh Eliyah
Martin, I can hear the sound of bitter tears from the LN camp
this evening. I do remember this debate, and the aspersions cast
upon the credibility of CT people over the "non-existent" stairs.
Shackleford humble pie, LN'ers?
Shiloh
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3956C32C...@concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
I'm still not naming the witnesses, but will when I am able.
At least they have a clue that there's more than one.
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> folks.....
>
> The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor.
Impressive.
Not!
Sorry.
Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
heard from her former husband?
Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
What difference does it make?
> She
> said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving
them
> up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape to
do
> this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
> stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the
fire
> escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
> metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs" because
> they were pull-down.
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
=keith=
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
>folks.....
>
>The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
>account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor. She
>said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving them
>up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape to do
>this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
>stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the fire
>escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
>metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs" because
>they were pull-down.
>
Ahh, confirmation. That is kewl Martin. Hark, I hear the howling
nutters grinding teeth.
=keith=
rickh...@my-deja.com
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > folks.....
> >
> > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor.
>
>
> Not!
>
> Sorry.
>
> Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> heard from her former husband?
>
> Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
>
> What difference does it make?
Interesting post, Joe. You make two discrediting responses BEFORE you
question the relevance of the material. Is that learned behavior or
just sort of a knee-jerk reaction?
Rick Holtman
>
> > She
> > said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving
> them
> > up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape
to
> do
> > this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
> > stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the
> fire
> > escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
> > metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs"
because
> > they were pull-down.
> >
> > Martin
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
>
Martin Shackelford
other witness, who only saw it a few times. Like many people, these
witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't talk to anyone about what
they knew.
As for the importance of the stairs, I'm not claiming major significance
for them, but as they were questioned earlier, I was just noting the
additional confirmation.
Both witnesses report that Oswald used the stairs.
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > folks.....
> >
> > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor.
>
> Impressive.
>
> Not!
>
> Sorry.
>
> Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> heard from her former husband?
>
> Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
>
> What difference does it make?
>
Shiloh Eliyah
And snarveling, Keith -- don't forget snarveling.
Shiloh
=keith= <ghostdogR...@pop.alberni.net> wrote in message
news:395772e4....@cnews.newsguy.com...
> On 25 Jun 2000 22:43:52 EDT, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> >folks.....
> >
> >The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> >account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor. She
> >said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving them
> >up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape to do
> >this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
> >stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the fire
> >escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
> >metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs" because
> >they were pull-down.
> >
> Ahh, confirmation. That is kewl Martin. Hark, I hear the howling
> nutters grinding teeth.
> =keith=
> >
Shiloh Eliyah
Actually, they learn that stuff at the LN Academy, along with all
the other 'droid actions and reactions of the (here it comes, y'all)
'droidian fringe!
Oh, that was so bad, it's good!
Shiloh
<rickh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j8aji$q3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8j879s$nha$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > > folks.....
> > >
> > > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor.
> >
> > Impressive.
> >
> > Not!
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> > heard from her former husband?
> >
> > Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
> >
> > What difference does it make?
>
> Interesting post, Joe. You make two discrediting responses BEFORE you
> question the relevance of the material. Is that learned behavior or
> just sort of a knee-jerk reaction?
>
> Rick Holtman
> >
> > > She
> > > said they had been removing guns from Banister's office, and moving
> > them
> > > up to the second floor. Initially, they were using the fire escape
> to
> > do
> > > this, but Banister thought that a little too public, and put in the
> > > stairs "so he could go up, and he could go down, without using the
> > fire
> > > escape...You know, they pulled them up and down, they were made of
> > > metal, and wood." She referred to them as "the spiral stairs"
> because
> > > they were pull-down.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > > --
> > > Martin Shackelford
> > >
> > > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > >
> > > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> > >
> > >
> >
Shiloh Eliyah
Now that is *significant* -- at least!
Also, it's nice to know there's still a few old pull down stairs
around.
Wasn't that a country hit not long ago?
Damn, I got the giggles tonight!
Shiloh<laughing his ass off and not even caring why!>
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3957E2C6...@concentric.net...
> She saw it herself. She was able to describe it in better detail that the
> other witness, who only saw it a few times. Like many people, these
> witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't talk to anyone about
what
> they knew.
> As for the importance of the stairs, I'm not claiming major significance
> for them, but as they were questioned earlier, I was just noting the
> additional confirmation.
> Both witnesses report that Oswald used the stairs.
>
> Martin
>
> joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > > folks.....
> > >
> > > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second floor.
> >
> > Impressive.
> >
> > Not!
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> > heard from her former husband?
> >
> > Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
> >
> > What difference does it make?
> >
joez...@my-deja.com
Curiously, you didn't answer that. It's pertinent, ya know.
In article <3957E2C6...@concentric.net>,
joez...@my-deja.com
rickh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8j879s$nha$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > > folks.....
> > >
> > > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second
floor.
> >
> > Impressive.
> >
> > Not!
> >
> > Sorry.
> >
> > Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> > heard from her former husband?
> >
> > Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
> >
> > What difference does it make?
>
> question the relevance of the material. Is that learned behavior or
> just sort of a knee-jerk reaction?
>
> Rick Holtman
Learned.
Prior to 1980 or thereabouts, I was a conspiracy believer. I had to
learn what's evidence (prints, photos, etc.), and what's not (hearsay,
recollections 20+ years later). Once I learned how to access evidence,
I became a LNer.
So yes, it's learned behavior. I learned it once I found out conspiracy
books were lying to me about nearly everything.
Martin Shackelford
Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
I came in contact with these witnesses during the past year. When the hell
do YOU think they mentioned the stairs--closer to 2000 than 1963? Of course.
Any other moronic diversionary questions to which you already assume the
answers?
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And when did she first mention these stairs? Closer to 2000 than 1963?
>
> Curiously, you didn't answer that. It's pertinent, ya know.
>
> In article <3957E2C6...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > She saw it herself. She was able to describe it in better detail that
> the
> > other witness, who only saw it a few times. Like many people, these
> > witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't talk to anyone
> about what
> > they knew.
> > As for the importance of the stairs, I'm not claiming major
> significance
> > for them, but as they were questioned earlier, I was just noting the
> > additional confirmation.
> > Both witnesses report that Oswald used the stairs.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> > > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But seriously,
> > > > folks.....
> > > >
> > > > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the witness
> > > > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second
> floor.
> > >
> > > Impressive.
> > >
> > > Not!
> > >
> > > Sorry.
> > >
> > > Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something she
> > > heard from her former husband?
> > >
> > > Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
> > >
> > > What difference does it make?
> > >
Martin Shackelford
Step One is to ask for confirmation. I checked that out, and found
confirmation.
Step Two is to dismiss the topic as irrelevant, after dwelling on
it.
StepThree is to claim, Posnerly, that the statement is too recent
(though Posner often relied on the most recent statement when it fit his
theory).
Step Four is to dwell on the "secret witness" issue, as you
already know I don't yet have permission to reveal any additional
identifying info on the witnesses.
Step Five is to pretend the first four steps haven't happened yet
and start all over again.
Have I missed one?
duquesne
drei...@aol.com says...
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >Joe:
> >
> > Step One is to ask for confirmation. I checked that out, and found
> >confirmation.
> > Step Two is to dismiss the topic as irrelevant, after dwelling on
> >it.
> > StepThree is to claim, Posnerly, that the statement is too recent
> >(though Posner often relied on the most recent statement when it fit his
> >theory).
> > Step Four is to dwell on the "secret witness" issue, as you
> >already know I don't yet have permission to reveal any additional
> >identifying info on the witnesses.
> > Step Five is to pretend the first four steps haven't happened yet
> >and start all over again.
> > Have I missed one?
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >--
> >Martin Shackelford
>
>
>
>
> Dave
>
HaHaHa...What's the matter mister "CT"? I thought you were looking for
the truth? Can't handle the fact that there was a stairway can you? CT my
ass! Just another McAdams lackey that can't handle the truth! Stay tuned
for the crap that's gonna be coming from this guy and Paulie Nolan over
the next few weeks.
gene
Shiloh Eliyah
Guess we'll just have to stair them down.
Shiloh <with a straight face, even>
duquesne <duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13c335a67...@news.skyweb.net...
Dave Reitzes
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>It's a bullshit diversionary Posner tactic, Joe.
>Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
>I came in contact with these witnesses during the past year. When the hell
>do YOU think they mentioned the stairs--closer to 2000 than 1963? Of course.
>
>Any other moronic diversionary questions to which you already assume the
>answers?
>
>Martin
How about, "Does Mrs. Lewis have her husband's neat-o plastic 'Private Eye'
gun?"
Or, "How come Dave Reitzes has been sworn to secrecy about these witnesses when
Martin Shackelford hasn't?"
Or, "When's the unveiling?"
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>Joe:
>
> Step One is to ask for confirmation. I checked that out, and found
>confirmation.
> Step Two is to dismiss the topic as irrelevant, after dwelling on
>it.
> StepThree is to claim, Posnerly, that the statement is too recent
>(though Posner often relied on the most recent statement when it fit his
>theory).
> Step Four is to dwell on the "secret witness" issue, as you
>already know I don't yet have permission to reveal any additional
>identifying info on the witnesses.
> Step Five is to pretend the first four steps haven't happened yet
>and start all over again.
> Have I missed one?
>
>Martin
>
>--
>Martin Shackelford
So you're saying there were only five steps? \:^)
Dave
Perpetual Starlight
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Original fiction, articles, music and more
Atlasrecrd
>Or, "How come Dave Reitzes has been sworn to secrecy about these witnesses
>when
>Martin Shackelford hasn't?"
>
>Or, "When's the unveiling?"
You mean,
"when do I give you the ass-kicking the entire internet is waiting for?"
Soon, you sorry mother fucker.
Dave Reitzes
Martin Shackelford
The info will go public when it goes public. Quit nagging, Dave, it's pointless.
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Stairs
> >From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
> >
> >It's a bullshit diversionary Posner tactic, Joe.
> >Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
> >I came in contact with these witnesses during the past year. When the hell
> >do YOU think they mentioned the stairs--closer to 2000 than 1963? Of course.
> >
> >Any other moronic diversionary questions to which you already assume the
> >answers?
> >
> >Martin
>
> How about, "Does Mrs. Lewis have her husband's neat-o plastic 'Private Eye'
> gun?"
>
> Or, "How come Dave Reitzes has been sworn to secrecy about these witnesses when
> Martin Shackelford hasn't?"
>
> Or, "When's the unveiling?"
>
--
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Dave Reitzes wrote:
--
Atlasrecrd
Proud indeed. It's liars like yourself that made me take another look at
Garrison's investigation.
Have fun, Dave. The corroborating witness count rose to three last week.
Enemy of the state? Look in the mirror, Dave.
I might never have to raise a rifle to defend my country, but I'll sure as
hell be pounding this keyboard as long as you're around.
"Liberty can not be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."
John Adams
Dave Reitzes
>I'm sure you'll think of more.
>
>Martin
Tough room. \:^|
Dave
art guerrilla
atlas shrugged-
> I might never have to raise a rifle to defend my country, but I'll sure as
>hell be pounding this keyboard as long as you're around
go atty, go atty!!
keep after that dirtee dog...
(oops, "personal attack" #17890)
say daveypoodle, does the millionth
"personal attacker" get some kind of
prize or sumpin?
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
ann mugging archy
eof
art guerrilla
joe zee conned-
>So yes, it's learned behavior. I learned it once I found out conspiracy
>books were lying to me about nearly everything.
ahhhhhh, eye see...
so's in summary, all the sea tee works
are "lies", and any, um, small, niggling,
marginal, um, 'problems' with ell enn
sources are, well, defensible errors of
no importance...
that simplifies it pretty good...
ann not-lying archy
eof
joez...@my-deja.com
Thanks for weighing in.
Speaking of weighing in, do you feel there's a problem with the weights
of the fragments provided to Guinn to test, and if so, do you think
this means the fragments Guinn tested were not the original ones?
duquesne
gene
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> It's a bullshit diversionary Posner tactic, Joe.
> Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
You're right, I apologize, thought I had made that point. I didn't.
Unexplained still is the answer to my question 'Why did she wait 37
years to tell this story?'
And I'll ask now: exactly how valuable, in your view, are statements
made about a building that is no longer in existence, that cannot be
proven or disproven, and that are about occurrences nearly 4 decades
ago?
I believe 'not very'. Why anybody would chortle about finding a witness
to anything, at this late date, is beyond me. Quite frankly, what a
witness says today, in the absence of physical evidence, is
meaningless. Did you locate the bill from the contractor who installed
the stairs or the architect's plans for the stairs? Nope? Any photos of
the stairs? Nope? What do you have, then, really?
Nothing.
Sorry, Martin, but you know it's true. No reasonable person will
believe in UFO's either, just because you present two witnesses who
claim to have seen one.
Not without some hard evidence.
PS: Pull-down staircases aren't spiral, and spiral staircases aren't
pulldown. Your witness has some explaining to do.
> I came in contact with these witnesses during the past year. When the
hell
> do YOU think they mentioned the stairs--closer to 2000 than 1963? Of
course.
>
> Any other moronic diversionary questions to which you already assume
the
> answers?
>
> Martin
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Martin Shackelford
> > > > >
> > > > > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > > > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > > > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > > > >
> > > > > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > Before you buy.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Shackelford
> > >
> > > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > >
> > > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
joez...@my-deja.com
> > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> >
In other words, you don't know.
Thanks for your input.
PS: I was asked whether questioning something before accepting it as
truthful was learned behavior. I responded in the affirmative, and I
cited, as indicative of that, the questions raised in CTer literature
about the fragments Guinn tested for the HSCA. Nobody has answered the
simple question I posed, but it's a really informative exercise. Try it
yourself. What answer did Frazier give concerning the weights, and does
the change in weights of the fragments mean the fragments Guinn tested
are not the ones Frazier tested, as alleged in conspiracy books?
Well?
>
> gene
duquesne
> In article <395940AD...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > It's a bullshit diversionary Posner tactic, Joe.
> > Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
>
> You're right, I apologize, thought I had made that point. I didn't.
>
> Unexplained still is the answer to my question 'Why did she wait 37
> years to tell this story?'
>
> And I'll ask now: exactly how valuable, in your view, are statements
> made about a building that is no longer in existence, that cannot be
> proven or disproven, and that are about occurrences nearly 4 decades
> ago?
>
> I believe 'not very'. Why anybody would chortle about finding a witness
> to anything, at this late date, is beyond me. Quite frankly, what a
> witness says today, in the absence of physical evidence, is
> meaningless. Did you locate the bill from the contractor who installed
> the stairs or the architect's plans for the stairs? Nope? Any photos of
> the stairs? Nope? What do you have, then, really?
>
> Nothing.
>
> Sorry, Martin, but you know it's true. No reasonable person will
> believe in UFO's either, just because you present two witnesses who
> claim to have seen one.
>
> Not without some hard evidence.
>
> PS: Pull-down staircases aren't spiral, and spiral staircases aren't
> pulldown. Your witness has some explaining to do.
>
For one thing, anyone who doesn't have an interest in the JFK
assassination would hardly know what significance that pull down
staircase has. If not asked it'S hardly something that would be
volunteered for no reason. I have one in my home but I wouldn't include a
description or even list it in an ad to sell my house. However, if
someone asked me 40 years from now if my house had a stairway to the
attic, I would say, "Yes,a pull down one."
I don't know why the timeframe would be an issue. After all, witnesses
ARE still alive. I know I'll be chortling if the real guilty parties are
still alive and end up being brought to justice. Hell, I'll volunteer to
pull the damn switch on the "hot seat for them. I may switch it on and
off a few times real quick however, just for laughs.
gene, who always loves a good BBQ.
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin knows the signioficance. He was the one who got the witness's
response. I doubt highly they contacted him out of the blue to
volunteer the info. And Martin didn't say it was volunteered. I'll bet
there was a series of questions before Martin got the affirmative he
sought.
>I have one in my home but I wouldn't include a
> description or even list it in an ad to sell my house. However, if
> someone asked me 40 years from now if my house had a stairway to the
> attic, I would say, "Yes,a pull down one."
>
Which is not the issue.
> I don't know why the timeframe would be an issue.
Well, then you don't understand what evidence is.
> After all, witnesses
> ARE still alive. I know I'll be chortling if the real guilty parties
are
> still alive and end up being brought to justice. Hell, I'll volunteer
to
> pull the damn switch on the "hot seat for them. I may switch it on
and
> off a few times real quick however, just for laughs.
>
> gene, who always loves a good BBQ.
>
>
Sorry, you missed your opportunity. Ruby got to him first.
duquesne
point is the witnes, unless interested in the details of the
assassination would hardly volunteer something as insignificant, (to
them), as a pull down staircase. I don't see your point above.
> >I have one in my home but I wouldn't include a
> > description or even list it in an ad to sell my house. However, if
> > someone asked me 40 years from now if my house had a stairway to the
> > attic, I would say, "Yes,a pull down one."
> >
> Which is not the issue.
>
See above. It's not an issue, it's how a normal person would react. I
don't think they would go around telling everyone they met, "Hey, there
was a pull down stair in that building."
>
>
> > I don't know why the timeframe would be an issue.
>
> Well, then you don't understand what evidence is.
>
Pardon me? I think you better discover the meaning of the word evidence.
Here's some definitions for you:
ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken
window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's
face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects
admissible as testimony in a court of law.
v. tr. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es.
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.
Now point out anything that mentions a timeframe in the above
definitions.
Now why don't you post for us *your* definition of the word or is your
definition just made up like a good part of the LN *scenario itself?
> > After all, witnesses
> > ARE still alive. I know I'll be chortling if the real guilty parties
> are
> > still alive and end up being brought to justice. Hell, I'll volunteer
> to
> > pull the damn switch on the "hot seat for them. I may switch it on
> and
> > off a few times real quick however, just for laughs.
> >
> > gene, who always loves a good BBQ.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, you missed your opportunity. Ruby got to him first.
>
That's debatable in case you hadn't noticed.
gene
Shiloh Eliyah
Now, that's mean!
Shiloh
duquesne <duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13c41e957...@news.skyweb.net...
> volunteered for no reason. I have one in my home but I wouldn't include a
> description or even list it in an ad to sell my house. However, if
> someone asked me 40 years from now if my house had a stairway to the
> attic, I would say, "Yes,a pull down one."
>
> I don't know why the timeframe would be an issue. After all, witnesses
Shiloh Eliyah
I learned a new expression today, and it just fit yo' attitude
about Flying Saucers -- a valid phenomenon noted the world,
celebrated in song, stories of rape, kidnapping, forced surgery,
huge ships in the night and lost testicular character -- and so, I
know that you know all that must be true.
So, Joe ... you ready for this, Joe?
Meadow Muffins, Joe. Meadow muffins.
Shiloh <still laughing about that Jeff Brown's Meadow Muffin remark>
<joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jdeds$lbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <395940AD...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > It's a bullshit diversionary Posner tactic, Joe.
> > Of COURSE I "didn't answer that"--no one ASKED it.
>
> You're right, I apologize, thought I had made that point. I didn't.
>
> Unexplained still is the answer to my question 'Why did she wait 37
> years to tell this story?'
>
> And I'll ask now: exactly how valuable, in your view, are statements
> made about a building that is no longer in existence, that cannot be
> proven or disproven, and that are about occurrences nearly 4 decades
> ago?
>
> I believe 'not very'. Why anybody would chortle about finding a witness
> to anything, at this late date, is beyond me. Quite frankly, what a
> witness says today, in the absence of physical evidence, is
> meaningless. Did you locate the bill from the contractor who installed
> the stairs or the architect's plans for the stairs? Nope? Any photos of
> the stairs? Nope? What do you have, then, really?
>
> Nothing.
>
> Sorry, Martin, but you know it's true. No reasonable person will
> believe in UFO's either, just because you present two witnesses who
> claim to have seen one.
>
> Not without some hard evidence.
>
> PS: Pull-down staircases aren't spiral, and spiral staircases aren't
> pulldown. Your witness has some explaining to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I came in contact with these witnesses during the past year. When the
> hell
> > do YOU think they mentioned the stairs--closer to 2000 than 1963? Of
> course.
> >
> > Any other moronic diversionary questions to which you already assume
> the
> > answers?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > And when did she first mention these stairs? Closer to 2000 than
> 1963?
> > >
> > > Curiously, you didn't answer that. It's pertinent, ya know.
> > >
> > > In article <3957E2C6...@concentric.net>,
> > > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > > She saw it herself. She was able to describe it in better detail
> that
> > > the
> > > > other witness, who only saw it a few times. Like many people,
> these
> > > > witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't talk to anyone
> > > about what
> > > > they knew.
> > > > As for the importance of the stairs, I'm not claiming major
> > > significance
> > > > for them, but as they were questioned earlier, I was just noting
> the
> > > > additional confirmation.
> > > > Both witnesses report that Oswald used the stairs.
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <3956C32C...@concentric.net>,
> > > > > Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > > > > A Banister with stairs? What's unusual about that? But
> seriously,
> > > > > > folks.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The former wife of a Banister employee just confirmed the
> witness
> > > > > > account of a stair going from Banister's office to the second
> > > floor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Impressive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not!
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did this woman see this herself, or is she repeating something
> she
> > > > > heard from her former husband?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why did she wait 37 years to tell this story?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > > Before you buy.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Martin Shackelford
> > > >
> > > > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > > >
> > > > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
>
Shiloh Eliyah
How good are you at payin' up on bets?
'Cause these ain' Martin's witnesses -- I heard him say so.
Shiloh
<joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jdnos$t6f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <MPG.13c41e957...@news.skyweb.net>,
> duquesne <duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > In article <8jdeds$lbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joez...@my-deja.com
> says...
> > For one thing, anyone who doesn't have an interest in the JFK
> > assassination would hardly know what significance that pull down
> > staircase has. If not asked it'S hardly something that would be
> > volunteered for no reason.
>
> Martin knows the signioficance. He was the one who got the witness's
> response. I doubt highly they contacted him out of the blue to
> volunteer the info. And Martin didn't say it was volunteered. I'll bet
> there was a series of questions before Martin got the affirmative he
> sought.
>
>
> >I have one in my home but I wouldn't include a
> > description or even list it in an ad to sell my house. However, if
> > someone asked me 40 years from now if my house had a stairway to the
> > attic, I would say, "Yes,a pull down one."
> >
>
> Which is not the issue.
>
>
>
>
> > I don't know why the timeframe would be an issue.
>
> Well, then you don't understand what evidence is.
>
>
> > After all, witnesses
> > ARE still alive. I know I'll be chortling if the real guilty parties
> are
> > still alive and end up being brought to justice. Hell, I'll volunteer
> to
> > pull the damn switch on the "hot seat for them. I may switch it on
> and
> > off a few times real quick however, just for laughs.
> >
> > gene, who always loves a good BBQ.
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, you missed your opportunity. Ruby got to him first.
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
I mentioned the stairs. Some of you made a big deal of it, not
me.
As for motives for waiting so long, that's not something I can
discuss at present.
Stugrad98
Could you tell us if there is any correspondence between the secret witness and
Oswald and/or private pictures of this person in the company of just Oswald,
not work related?
-Stu
joez...@my-deja.com
Well, you need a better way to keep your stories straight, then.
Can't discuss their motives for waiting so long?
But Martin, you already did. I remind that you you earlier wrote: "Like
many people, these witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't
talk to anyone about what they knew."
Sounds like a motive to me. What's that sound like to you?
Martin Shackelford
Materials in Oswald's handwriting, yes.
Private photos--under the circumstances, none were taken, though
Oswald and the witness were accidentally captured on film together--not
work related.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <395B0F67...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Joe:
> >
> > I mentioned the stairs. Some of you made a big deal of it,
> not
> > me.
> > As for motives for waiting so long, that's not something I
> can
> > discuss at present.
> >
> > Martin
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
>
> Well, you need a better way to keep your stories straight, then.
>
> Can't discuss their motives for waiting so long?
>
> But Martin, you already did. I remind that you you earlier wrote: "Like
> many people, these witnesses were afraid for a long time, and didn't
> talk to anyone about what they knew."
>
> Sounds like a motive to me. What's that sound like to you?
>
> --
> "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Stugrad98
witness goes public?
-Stu
Jerry
stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> Thanks Martin. How long do you think we would have to wait before
this witness goes public?
Don't hold your breath, Stu-boy.
Jerry
> -Stu
Magic Bullet
Some UFO researchers from the US have just arrived in here in Darwin to
investigate a spate of recent sightings. They seem to believe that the top
secret joint US/AUS spy instellation known as Pine Gap (near Alice Springs)
is being used to reverse-engineer crashed UFO's - and that alien survivors
are assisting.
Whether or not that's true, Pine Gap is definately using ECHELON to secretly
listen in on the world.
In '75, Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam was ousted from power in a CIA
orchestrated coup for threatening to close the instellation down, and for
having federal police raid the offices of ASIO (our own CIA) after they
refused to to allow the government access to their files.
Whilst I don't give any credence to the theory that JFK was killed because
he was about to release the "truth" about UFO's, Pine Gap itself could well
be a usefull and (I think) thus far, unchartered area of investigation in
the case due to it's intelligence gathering activities for the CIA (and
possibly the NSA).
And as for UFO's, and the LNer's continued attempts to compare JFK
conspiracies to UFO's in a derogatory way: All I can say is - the acronym
stands for Unidentied Flying Object. Are they seriously suggesting that
every object ever sighted in the air HAS been identified?
If so, I got a harbor-side opera house for urgent sale, and it's within 15
minutes of most olympic venues. This is a forced sale so's my little sister
can have that operation, so please, don't take too much advantage of my
desperate situation...
greg
Shiloh Eliyah <sel...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:8jegtt$hnc$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
Shiloh Eliyah
I never heard of this particular installation before, but then -- what I
don't know about would fill the Library of Congress and then some. I'm
sure I never heard of ECHELON before.
On the home front, I do know that Big Brother (in the form of the NSA)
has been watching us all for some time via telephone, etc. With the new
technology and the new "chips" in 'puters, it wouldn't surprise me to learn
that we're on T<>V in living color, 24 - 7 - 365.
Just doesn't seem to be any way to stop that kind of surveillance, when
one figures that the military, etc are 10-15 years ahead of what we can go
out and buy.
Of course, anybody watching here would die of boredom, very shortly.
Shiloh <peering carefully into the t.v. tube and eyeing the crt
suspiciously>
Magic Bullet <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:8jmqrk$q4r$1...@news1.octa4.net.au...
art guerrilla
shiloh-whey-eye-was-jung-dreamed-
> I'm
>sure I never heard of ECHELON before.
shhhhh!
no such thing...
just another vast left wing konspiracy to
make the gummint look bad...
*snort* ..as if...
>Shiloh <peering carefully into the t.v. tube and eyeing the crt
>suspiciously>
eye recommend the reynolds heavy
duty cooking bags, all you have to do is
punch two eyeholes and you've got a
cheap, effective, loose fitting cranial
shield with maximum coverage...
...gals, a multi-colored chain of twist
ties at the neck adds a contemporary
look and keeps the helmet in place too!
ann eye-guarantee archy
eof
joez...@my-deja.com
"Shiloh Eliyah" <sel...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Uh ... Joe ... ?
>
> How good are you at payin' up on bets?
>
> 'Cause these ain' Martin's witnesses -- I heard him say so.
>
> Shiloh
So what? It doesn't change the point any. The interviewer raised the
question. It's not something the interviewee would volunteer. The
original poster I responded to raised the issue of the interviewee
volunteering the response about the stairs, meaning it had more
credibility because it was volunteered, not directly asked about. I
took exception to that, and bet that 'Martin' (or the interviewer, if
not Martin) asked a series of questions before an affirmative response
was forthcoming.
Martin, how about it? Was there a series of questions or was the info
volunteered?
>
> <joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8jdnos$t6f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <MPG.13c41e957...@news.skyweb.net>,
> > duquesne <duqu...@NOSPAM.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8jdeds$lbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joez...@my-deja.com
> > says...
Martin Shackelford
general question to a second witness, which resulted in volunteered
information and further details.
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
joez...@my-deja.com
In article <3965398A...@concentric.net>,
> > > > > In article <8jdeds$lbn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, joezircon@my-
Atlasrecrd
>We're still talking exclusively about the stairs, specifically, right?
You're sniffin' up the wrong tree, my man.
All of this person's account is already contemporaneously documented, and what
isn't, was on paper before any researchers were contacted.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Shiloh Eliyah
Thanks a bunch, Ann ... I think???
Don' mind 'em watchin' me -- but looking ridiculous as I
try to peep back through the tubes -- naw, not today. Just
think what they could make out of such pictures --
"Local Schizo Busted by Gummint Agents for Hiding in
See Eye Ehh Foilin' Foil!"
"Yo' Gummint Agents At Work Foilin' Internet Foil
Menace!"
"Foil Scare on 'Net Tagged by Yo' Gummint!"
B Sides --
I couldn't wear that over my Yarmalka!
Shiloh
art guerrilla <digde...@aol.comoc.loa> wrote in message
news:20000706095528...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
>
> shiloh-whey-eye-was-jung-dreamed-
>
> > I'm
> >sure I never heard of ECHELON before.
>
> shhhhh!
> no such thing...
> just another vast left wing konspiracy to
> make the gummint look bad...
>
> *snort* ..as if...
>
> >Shiloh <peering carefully into the t.v. tube and eyeing the crt
> >suspiciously>
>