Limo Cleaning and Bud - Repost #2
Ben Holmes
Another repost for Bud:
Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
*************************************************************************
1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the
president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret Service
men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT
WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the fabric top on it.
And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one of the agents waved me
aside and said, 'You can't look.' Later, of course, it seemed ironic that this
wall of protection went up when it of course could do no good...";
2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get a bucket
of water; he complied;
3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone to come
and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but was so nervous
and excited she forgot about it;
4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was set up
around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and tried to wash
the blood from the car.";
5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had to be
wiped from the limousine";
6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the police were
guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water stood by the car,
suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
"...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
sponged it [the limousine] out.";
8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988
edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the back seat
with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated.";
9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance of a DPD
motorcycle officer---at Parkland: they are pictured in the infamous
photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination File" by DPD
Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo, different angle in UPI's
"Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel ("Kennedy In Texas" video);
WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges film; for the bucket still photo:
http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at
White House Garage 11/22/63]
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
Vince Palamara :-)
*************************************************************************
I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how Mr. Harris
is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that he's attempting to
contradict.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Another repost for Bud:
Why, thank you, Ben.
> Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
> (Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>
> *************************************************************************
> 1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
> (1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
> Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the
> president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret Service
> men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT
> WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the fabric top on it.
> And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one of the agents waved me
> aside and said, 'You can't look.' Later, of course, it seemed ironic that this
> wall of protection went up when it of course could do no good...";
So, this guy admits his observations were at a distance, and when he
tried to get a closer look, he was shooed away. It may have appeared
they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance. Another
thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
roll them up to put the roof on. Activity like this might appear that
they were cleaning the back from a distance.
> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get a bucket
> of water; he complied;
Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
is apparent. Why it was requested is the question. There were
motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone to come
> and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but was so nervous
> and excited she forgot about it;
Yes , it would have been hectic. Possible the request was something
like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
cleaning.
> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was set up
> around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and tried to wash
> the blood from the car.";
Note the date. This could be just second-hand information from
MacNeil. Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
the time.
> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had to be
> wiped from the limousine";
Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the police were
> guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water stood by the car,
> suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
"suggesting"? Like I said, there would have been blood on the
motorcycle cops
and possibly on the SS agents who touched the limo.
> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies? You
have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum? Does anyone
else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
Seems a photo of this would exist. And it`s hard to imagine them
entering to clean the limo after the top was put on.
> 8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988
> edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the back seat
> with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated.";
"Contemplated" means it wasn`t done. This source claims no cleaning
was done, why was it included?
> 9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
> Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance of a DPD
> motorcycle officer---at Parkland:
Actually, it appears in the photos like regular Dallas police helped
put on the top, the motorcycle cops are only watching.
> they are pictured in the infamous
> photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination File" by DPD
> Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo, different angle in UPI's
> "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel ("Kennedy In Texas" video);
> WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges film; for the bucket still photo:
> http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at
> White House Garage 11/22/63]
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
There are a couple pictures of the bucket by the rear left tire of
the limo. It is there for at least 2 pictures, but it isn`t there in
later picture. Likely it was moved because it was under foot when they
put the top on the limo.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Another repost for Bud:
>
> Why, thank you, Ben.
>
>> Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
>> (Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>>
>> *************************************************************************
>> 1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
>> (1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
>> Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the
>> president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret
>> Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the
>> fabric top on it. And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one
>> of the agents waved me aside and said, 'You can't look.' Later, of course,
>> it seemed ironic that this wall of protection went up when it of course
>> could do no good...";
>
> So, this guy admits his observations were at a distance, and when he
>tried to get a closer look, he was shooed away.
Yep... that "wall" of police, keeping people away, was surely 50 feet or more
from the limo...
Just another *stupid* speculation that you have to endure...
Of course, photos showed a crowd of people that were probably no more than 15-20
feet away, quite close enough to see what was seen and reported... To say
nothing of the photos, which I'm quite sure weren't taken by the Secret Service
or the DPD. And yet, they show quite a bit of detail, don't they?
What you are down to is arguing that an eyewitness could not have seen what he
described...
Anyone who looks at these photos, and tries to believe *YOUR* argument that
someone standing close enough to take these pictures could not have figured out
that the limo was being washed, or was *confused* into believing this was
happening, is as much a kook as you are.
>It may have appeared
>they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance.
Again... more speculation... how sad...
And you have *NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER* for the curious lack of eyewitness
testimony asserting that policemen were merely washing blood off their uniform,
or whatever...
>Another
>thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
>windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
>cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
>roll them up to put the roof on.
More silly speculation...
>Activity like this might appear that
>they were cleaning the back from a distance.
Speculation piled on top of speculation...
>> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get
>> a bucket of water; he complied;
>
> Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
>is apparent. Why it was requested is the question.
Not if you actually pay attention to the eyewitnesses, it isn't.
You ignore and deny the mutually corroborating, independent, eyewitness accounts
to latch on to explanations THAT HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT IT
WHATSOEVER!
But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculating... carry on...
>There were
>motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
>getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
And not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* who describes what you are now speculating.
Do you still think that lurkers might judge you to be honest?
>> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone
>> to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but
>> was so nervous and excited she forgot about it;
>
> Yes , it would have been hectic.
And yet, someone thought to ask for a bucket of water within the first minute or
two. Must have been following a well thought out plan, eh?
>Possible the request was something
>like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
>like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
>cleaning.
Yep... simply *deny* what eyewitnesses state... even when it's independently
corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses...
Speculate on other possibilities that have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* for them...
The improbabilities you have to believe boggle the mind...
>> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was
>> set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and
>> tried to wash the blood from the car.";
>
> Note the date.
Yep... magazines generally *do* have a lead time.
>This could be just second-hand information from
>MacNeil.
Who's book was published in 1988. I rather doubt if the book was the source.
So do you suppose that MacNeil was holding a press conference there at Parkland?
Telling everyone else who was there what they were seeing?
You *do* know that there were reporters there, right? You *do* know that there
were more than just one or two, right?
>Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
>the time.
When speculation is your best argument, and denying what eyewitnesses assert is
your only defense... what can anyone say?
>> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had
>> to be wiped from the limousine";
>
> Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
>based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
More speculation...
When you have to imagine that Parkland didn't have any reporters covering this
story, despite eyewitness testimony - you illustrate the dishonesty that you
must sink to in order to avoid the obvious.
>> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the
>> police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water
>> stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
>
> "suggesting"?
Yep... quite clearly Tom Wicker didn't get there soon enough to see the washing
of the limo. It *did* happen within just minutes of the arrival, if you've been
paying attention to the eyewitness testimony. Tom Wicker clearly didn't see the
washing of the limo, as others did... and must have missed the "MacNeil Press
Conference" you imagine.
>Like I said, there would have been blood on the
>motorcycle cops and possibly on the SS agents who touched the limo.
A rather silly suggestion that you aren't the first to come up with. Robert
Harris beat you to it... and he was probably not the first either...
Imagining a "cleaning station" being set up with a single bucket, and just
coincidently next to the limo that eyewitnesses reported being cleaned, is just
the sort of improbable situation that LNT'ers have to believe.
Don't mind that not ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS described any policemen washing off
blood from *their* uniform from that bucket... and completely ignore the simple
solution of walking into the hospital that surely had restrooms...
Yet this is the sort of speculation that LNT'ers have to imagine to get around
the obvious...
>> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
>> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
>> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
>
> Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies?
As is clear, the Secret Service... but you have to pay attention.
The Secret Service could hardly complain to Jim Bishop that they regretted their
destruction of evidence... The blame had to be placed elsewhere. Maybe in
LNT'er world those who commit criminal acts brag about them to authors...
And yet, it's quite clear that Jim Bishop was getting the information that the
limo *HAD* been cleaned. And was getting this information from one of the very
few sources that would know the truth beyond any doubt.
But this is simple... don't you bother to *think* about something before
commenting?
I guess you'll just have to call the Secret Service liars...
You see... I *know* they lied about *who* cleaned the limo... but *YOU* have to
imagine that they lied and created the whole story ... and it just happened to
be corroborated by eyewitnesses.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>You have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum?
No, there are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the limo.
Why do you need to lie about the evidence, Bud?
What you have is a self-serving declaration by the Secret Service, who had to
blame it on *someone* else. There are *NO* eyewitnesses who stated that anyone
other than the Secret Service was cleaning the limo.
It *was*, clearly, the original plan... they *asked* Shirley Randall to do it...
but their plan got fouled up when she forgot...
>Does anyone
>else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
The answer, for any lurkers who took the time to read the quotes provided, is
clearly "no". But don't let the facts disturb your spin, Bud...
>Seems a photo of this would exist.
If you were dealing with eyewitnesses, yes, you might have a point. But asking
for a photo of the Secret Service's designated patsy is like asking for a photo
of *ANY* DPD officer cleaning his goggles or uniform or motorcycle using the
bucket.
>And it`s hard to imagine them
>entering to clean the limo after the top was put on.
Don't *need* to imagine this... no eyewitness reported it. But don't let the
facts stop your speculations...
Imagining that the top was put on *first*, and only then could the limo be
washed, and arguing that the it's difficult to imagine this - is a silly
argument.
Why not simply argue that the car wash was 1/4 mile further down the road, and
we don't have a photo of the limo at the car wash, therefore the limo wasn't
washed?
It would make as much sense...
>> 8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988
>> edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the
>> back seat with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated.";
>
> "Contemplated" means it wasn`t done. This source claims no cleaning
>was done, why was it included?
Why not? I well understand the LNT'er tendency to disregard anything that
doesn't fit your niche theory... but people looking for the truth gather *ALL*
the evidence.
You wish to believe a non-eyewitness over those who were there... merely
illustrates your biases...
Why not try thinking of who "contemplated" washing the limo within minutes of
the arrival of a dying President to Parkland?
And *why* washing the limo was so important to someone?
If you want to speculate, why not do it with *FACTS* supporting it?
This is also, of course, more evidence that your silly theory that the bucket
was merely for policemen to wash up in is just that. No one is "contemplating"
washing their goggles...
But don't put evidence together, Bud... it will quickly turn you into a CT'er...
>> 9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
>> Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance
>> of a DPD motorcycle officer---at Parkland:
>
> Actually, it appears in the photos like regular Dallas police helped
>put on the top, the motorcycle cops are only watching.
Judging quite a bit by a snapshot in time, aren't you?
And would you like to explain why the photo listed below (pg 36) shows a police
officer with the bubbletop in his hand, WEARING A HELMET???
Do you really suppose that "regular Dallas police" wore helmets? And do you
suppose that the police officer wearing a hat in the background was really the
motorcycle cop?
>> they are pictured in the infamous
>> photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination
>> File" by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo,
>> different angle in UPI's "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel
>> ("Kennedy In Texas" video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges
>> film; for the bucket still photo: http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
>> [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at White House Garage 11/22/63]
>> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
>
> There are a couple pictures of the bucket by the rear left tire of
>the limo. It is there for at least 2 pictures, but it isn`t there in
>later picture. Likely it was moved because it was under foot when they
>put the top on the limo.
Could be... when you're finished washing the limo, you don't need the bucket
anymore.
>> Vince Palamara :-)
>>
>> *************************************************************************
>>
>> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how
>> Mr. Harris is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that
>> he's attempting to contradict.
It's fun to watch you attempt to "explain away" each individual eyewitness,
Bud... but you have to be far too dishonest with their statements.
Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth?
aeffects
few to your recent thread concerning Randall...
David Healy
Bud
> In article <1126231390.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Another repost for Bud:
> >
> > Why, thank you, Ben.
> >
> >> Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
> >> (Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
> >>
> >> *************************************************************************
> >> 1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
> >> (1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
> >> Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the
> >> president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret
> >> Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN
> >> THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the
> >> fabric top on it. And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one
> >> of the agents waved me aside and said, 'You can't look.' Later, of course,
> >> it seemed ironic that this wall of protection went up when it of course
> >> could do no good...";
> >
> > So, this guy admits his observations were at a distance, and when he
> >tried to get a closer look, he was shooed away.
>
>
> Yep... that "wall" of police, keeping people away, was surely 50 feet or more
> from the limo...
>
> Just another *stupid* speculation that you have to endure...
Just listening to the eyewitness, Ben. How could he see anything of
what they were doing down in the backseat from a distance? If he didn`t
actualy observe them mopping up blood, then it`s just an assumption on
his part, right? Is there any way he could have witnessed mopping up of
blood in the backseat the way he describes his vantage point for the
event?
> Of course, photos showed a crowd of people that were probably no more than 15-20
> feet away, quite close enough to see what was seen and reported... To say
> nothing of the photos, which I'm quite sure weren't taken by the Secret Service
> or the DPD. And yet, they show quite a bit of detail, don't they?
Yah, they do, of the putting on of the roof. Nothing that can be
clearly discerned as cleaning the limo. To clean the backseat, one
would need to either get in the back, or lean way over the door to
reach into the back. Any pictures of anything like this?
> What you are down to is arguing that an eyewitness could not have seen what he
> described...
Yah, it seems obvious that from his vantage point, he couldn`t see
what he describes.
> Anyone who looks at these photos, and tries to believe *YOUR* argument that
> someone standing close enough to take these pictures could not have figured out
> that the limo was being washed, or was *confused* into believing this was
> happening, is as much a kook as you are.
Of course, Ben, people always draw correct conclusions from the
events they witnessed.
> >It may have appeared
> >they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance.
>
> Again... more speculation... how sad...
>
> And you have *NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER* for the curious lack of eyewitness
> testimony asserting that policemen were merely washing blood off their uniform,
> or whatever...
Yes, that is a fact that out of all the events and conversations
that may have occurred in that Parkland parking lot, much much than 1%
was recorded. What did the policeman who was helping the nurse with the
gurney hear the man who supposedly ask for a bucket of water say? Where
is the testimony of the couple of hundred people milling around outside
of Parkland. You`ve produced one actual witness who said he aw the
cleaning, and he describes a scene in which he could not directly
observe the cleaning.
> >Another
> >thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
> >windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
> >cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
> >roll them up to put the roof on.
>
> More silly speculation...
Well, where is the minute by minutes reports of the activities of
all people concerned. You have a very small amount of information, and
you are claiming that it rock solid establishes something.
> >Activity like this might appear that
> >they were cleaning the back from a distance.
>
>
> Speculation piled on top of speculation...
<snicker> And what is it when you conclude this was a willful
attempt to destroy evidence? I`d say the possibilities I`m putting
forth are only around a thousand times more reasonable than your
crackpot speculation
> >> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get
> >> a bucket of water; he complied;
> >
> > Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
> >is apparent. Why it was requested is the question.
>
>
> Not if you actually pay attention to the eyewitnesses, it isn't.
>
> You ignore and deny the mutually corroborating, independent, eyewitness accounts
> to latch on to explanations THAT HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT IT
> WHATSOEVER!
>
> But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculating... carry on...
Ok. But you are really only presenting one eyewitness to the
supposed cleaning, and a nurse who remembers a request she didn`t
fulfil.
> >There were
> >motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
> >getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
>
>
> And not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* who describes what you are now speculating.
>
> Do you still think that lurkers might judge you to be honest?
Why would you think a cop cleaning his goggles, or a SS man rinsing
off his hands would appear in the record? (It never ceases to amaze me
that Oz takes his rifle to work and shoots some people, and it somehow
becomes relevant if a cop washes his hands at the hospital afterwards.
It show what the micro-analyzation of this event has taken things to).
> >> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone
> >> to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but
> >> was so nervous and excited she forgot about it;
> >
> > Yes , it would have been hectic.
>
>
> And yet, someone thought to ask for a bucket of water within the first minute or
> two. Must have been following a well thought out plan, eh?
Reject my speculation as sad, yet you leap to this crackpot
speculation,eh, Ben? A bucket of water is useless for cleaning the
limo, unless the intent was to throw it across the trunk. A bucket of
water is useful to rinse of ones hands, though.
> >Possible the request was something
> >like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
> >like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
> >cleaning.
>
>
> Yep... simply *deny* what eyewitnesses state... even when it's independently
> corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses...
You have more than one first hand witness to the cleaning of the
limo?
> Speculate on other possibilities that have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* for them...
Why would you expect to be able to firmly reconstruct events from
only a few sentences from a few of the hundreds of witnesses in the
Parkland parking lot?
> The improbabilities you have to believe boggle the mind...
>
>
>
> >> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was
> >> set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and
> >> tried to wash the blood from the car.";
> >
> > Note the date.
>
>
> Yep... magazines generally *do* have a lead time.
>
> >This could be just second-hand information from
> >MacNeil.
>
>
> Who's book was published in 1988. I rather doubt if the book was the source.
> So do you suppose that MacNeil was holding a press conference there at Parkland?
> Telling everyone else who was there what they were seeing?
I`m sure MacNeil never breathed a word to anyone about what he
thought he saw until he put it in his book. The point is, you don`t
know whether these other news reports are based on MacNeil`s
observaions or first hand observations of the other reporters.
> You *do* know that there were reporters there, right? You *do* know that there
> were more than just one or two, right?
I just don`t know if the reporters who wrote these other reports of
the limo cleaning were there. Do you?
> >Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
> >the time.
>
>
> When speculation is your best argument, and denying what eyewitnesses assert is
> your only defense... what can anyone say?
Does Hugh Sidney, anywhere in his report, claim to have been an
eyewitness to the events at Parkland?
> >> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had
> >> to be wiped from the limousine";
> >
> > Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
> >based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
>
>
> More speculation...
Yah, it is merely speculation that they weren`t all based on
MacNeil`s observations.
> When you have to imagine that Parkland didn't have any reporters covering this
> story, despite eyewitness testimony - you illustrate the dishonesty that you
> must sink to in order to avoid the obvious.
Can you tell reporting from first hand observation from reports
compiled from sources? MacNeil`s report is obviously first hand. The
other report may or may not be. Of course you are free to assume they
are based on first hand observation, and I`ll point out that this is
only supposition.
> >> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the
> >> police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water
> >> stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
> >
> > "suggesting"?
>
>
> Yep... quite clearly Tom Wicker didn't get there soon enough to see the washing
> of the limo.
Then why was he included in a list of people who support that the
limo was cleaned. To beef it up so it appears more substantial? That
there was a bucket of water near the limo is documented by photos. In
fact, it`s position near the limo might be what led to some of the
reports that the limo was cleaned. But, it
is in a terrible spot for cleaning the backseat of pools of blood,
wouldn`t you agree. They use whatever iten they are using for the
mopping, then transport the blood soaked item several feet to the rear
of the car to rinse it off. Wouldn`y blood and gore drip down the
fronts of their nice suits? If the bucket was used for the purpose you
describe, wouldn`t it be more efficient to have the bucket closer to
the action?
> It *did* happen within just minutes of the arrival, if you've been
> paying attention to the eyewitness testimony.
Is the time fixed for this event? I see a request for water that
was not acted on within minutes of the arrival, is all. When was the
water actually brought out?
> Tom Wicker clearly didn't see the
> washing of the limo, as others did... and must have missed the "MacNeil Press
> Conference" you imagine.
I have the vivid kind of imagination that can picture reports
socially talking amongst themselves, comparing notes and observations.
The cleaning of the limo wouldn`t have been the kind of scoop to
guardedly keep to one`s self.
> >Like I said, there would have been blood on the
> >motorcycle cops and possibly on the SS agents who touched the limo.
>
>
> A rather silly suggestion that you aren't the first to come up with. Robert
> Harris beat you to it... and he was probably not the first either...
>
> Imagining a "cleaning station" being set up with a single bucket, and just
> coincidently next to the limo that eyewitnesses reported being cleaned, is just
> the sort of improbable situation that LNT'ers have to believe.
Why wouldn`t the bucket be placed where the people needing to rinse
their hands might need it?
> Don't mind that not ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS described any policemen washing off
> blood from *their* uniform from that bucket... and completely ignore the simple
> solution of walking into the hospital that surely had restrooms...
Doubt the SS wanted a lot of people, even police, going in and out.
> Yet this is the sort of speculation that LNT'ers have to imagine to get around
> the obvious...
It`s pretty obvious that a bucket of water was pretty useless by
itself to clean the limo. Was the SS using their ties to mop up the
blood?
> >> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
> >> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
> >> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
> >
> > Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies?
>
>
> As is clear, the Secret Service... but you have to pay attention.
So, a bogus report was included to prop up the idea the limo was
cleaned.
> The Secret Service could hardly complain to Jim Bishop that they regretted their
> destruction of evidence... The blame had to be placed elsewhere. Maybe in
> LNT'er world those who commit criminal acts brag about them to authors...
What is the word for this type of crackpot musing? Oh, right,
"speculation".
> And yet, it's quite clear that Jim Bishop was getting the information that the
> limo *HAD* been cleaned. And was getting this information from one of the very
> few sources that would know the truth beyond any doubt.
There you go with the assumptions. He doesn`t say where he got the
concept that the SS was sorry that orderlies cleaned the limo from. You
only assume the source was the SS (as if the "SS" was one person, with
one mouth).
> But this is simple... don't you bother to *think* about something before
> commenting?
>
> I guess you'll just have to call the Secret Service liars...
Your lack of imagination is staggering. Is that the only option you
see? Was this spokesman for the SS that expressed regret for orderlies
cleaning the limo even at Parkland? Perhaps you should establish the
basics taking leaps off this information. Like, who was the source, and
were they at Parkland?
> You see... I *know* they lied about *who* cleaned the limo... but *YOU* have to
> imagine that they lied and created the whole story ... and it just happened to
> be corroborated by eyewitnesses.
I see it as a report that contains information that didn`t happen.
Only CT could think that a bogus report supports their premise.
> Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>
>
> >You have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum?
>
>
> No, there are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the limo.
> Why do you need to lie about the evidence, Bud?
You produced reports of both events happening. If you thought the
information in this source was bogus, you shouldn`t have included it.
> What you have is a self-serving declaration by the Secret Service, who had to
> blame it on *someone* else.
That is how a crackpot might choose to view it, yes.
> There are *NO* eyewitnesses who stated that anyone
> other than the Secret Service was cleaning the limo.
Then it was shoddy work for Jim Bishop to include it in his book,
wasn`t it?
> It *was*, clearly, the original plan... they *asked* Shirley Randall to do it...
> but their plan got fouled up when she forgot...
Yah, Ben knows what *they* are thinking, the sure sign of a
crackpot. Lets look at another possibility, pure speculation mind you,
but one more fixed in the real world instead of indulging in wild
flights of fantasy. "A man" asks nurse Shirley Randall for a bucket of
water (but not rags, the other necessary item for car cleaning). It is
worded something like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with?"
Now, she sees the black shiny cars, and possibly the gore covered
backseat of the limo, and assumes the cleaning needed in the mess in
the limo. She doesn`t forget, she tells an orderly that they want a
bucket outside to clean the mess in the limo, and then forgets that she
relayed the request. The orderly gets the bucket of water, and when
carrying it out, a reporter, hungry for any tidbit of information he
could get, asks what it is for. Orderly replies that the men asked for
it to clean the car. Reporter reports limo cleaning.
> >Does anyone
> >else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
>
>
> The answer, for any lurkers who took the time to read the quotes provided, is
> clearly "no". But don't let the facts disturb your spin, Bud...
Who included this report of orderlies cleaning the limo? wasn`t me.
> >Seems a photo of this would exist.
>
> If you were dealing with eyewitnesses, yes, you might have a point. But asking
> for a photo of the Secret Service's designated patsy is like asking for a photo
> of *ANY* DPD officer cleaning his goggles or uniform or motorcycle using the
> bucket.
My point was that orderlies cleaning the backseat would be a photo
oppotunity I would expect someone to capture.
> >And it`s hard to imagine them
> >entering to clean the limo after the top was put on.
>
> Don't *need* to imagine this... no eyewitness reported it. But don't let the
> facts stop your speculations...
>
> Imagining that the top was put on *first*, and only then could the limo be
> washed, and arguing that the it's difficult to imagine this - is a silly
> argument.
>
> Why not simply argue that the car wash was 1/4 mile further down the road, and
> we don't have a photo of the limo at the car wash, therefore the limo wasn't
> washed?
> It would make as much sense...
>
>
> >> 8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988
> >> edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the
> >> back seat with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated.";
> >
> > "Contemplated" means it wasn`t done. This source claims no cleaning
> >was done, why was it included?
>
>
> Why not? I well understand the LNT'er tendency to disregard anything that
> doesn't fit your niche theory... but people looking for the truth gather *ALL*
> the evidence.
>
> You wish to believe a non-eyewitness over those who were there... merely
> illustrates your biases...
No, I was merely questioning why this was offered, it is information
to the effect that the limo wasn`t cleaned, which makes it odd to
include in a list of things supporting that the limo had been cleaned.
> Why not try thinking of who "contemplated" washing the limo within minutes of
> the arrival of a dying President to Parkland?
According to Manchester, someone who thought better of it.
> And *why* washing the limo was so important to someone?
>
> If you want to speculate, why not do it with *FACTS* supporting it?
Believe it or not, I have no desire to indulge in crackpot thinking,
thank you very much.
> This is also, of course, more evidence that your silly theory that the bucket
> was merely for policemen to wash up in is just that. No one is "contemplating"
> washing their goggles...
And no one is cleaning the limo either.
> But don't put evidence together, Bud... it will quickly turn you into a CT'er...
This whole case can be seen as a simple trip to the local store.
Since Ct feel the trip is too easy and ordinary, they opted to drive
past the obvious destination in search of something better. They`ve
been meadering aimlessly ever since. They seem to enjoy the scenery so
much that they don`t realize they are getting further and further away
from their expresed destination.
In any case, you seem to feel I should leap to extraordinary
conclusions from fragments of sketchy information. You have the tip of
the iceberg, and you think from that you know the eact size and weight
of the whole thing. If you were to produce affidavits from a number of
people, cops, bystanders, ect of these events, then I would conclude it
is an established occurance. What did the cop who was helping the nurse
hear the man say when he asked for the bucket? If you could produce
something from him saying he heard the same thing, then I would
consider it corroborated. And if there was in existance some testimony
that conflicted with that nurse`s account, would CT produce it?
> >> 9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
> >> Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance
> >> of a DPD motorcycle officer---at Parkland:
> >
> > Actually, it appears in the photos like regular Dallas police helped
> >put on the top, the motorcycle cops are only watching.
>
>
> Judging quite a bit by a snapshot in time, aren't you?
>
> And would you like to explain why the photo listed below (pg 36) shows a police
> officer with the bubbletop in his hand, WEARING A HELMET???
I`ll look again. The site I was looking at had the cops in caps
helping, and it appeared the helmeted cops were only watching. There
are only five or six pictures, but I think there are more because I saw
some elsewhere in Marsh`s collection which were too tiny to tell
anything other than they were different from the ones I viewed on
Lancer.
> Do you really suppose that "regular Dallas police" wore helmets? And do you
> suppose that the police officer wearing a hat in the background was really the
> motorcycle cop?
Do you have a place on the internet I can view that picture? I`m
interested in seeing any and all outside of Parkland.
> >> they are pictured in the infamous
> >> photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination
> >> File" by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo,
> >> different angle in UPI's "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel
> >> ("Kennedy In Texas" video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges
> >> film; for the bucket still photo: http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
> >> [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at White House Garage 11/22/63]
> >> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
> >
> > There are a couple pictures of the bucket by the rear left tire of
> >the limo. It is there for at least 2 pictures, but it isn`t there in
> >later picture. Likely it was moved because it was under foot when they
> >put the top on the limo.
>
>
> Could be... when you're finished washing the limo, you don't need the bucket
> anymore.
Where precisely was the area being cleaned?
> >> Vince Palamara :-)
> >>
> >> *************************************************************************
> >>
> >> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how
> >> Mr. Harris is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that
> >> he's attempting to contradict.
>
>
> It's fun to watch you attempt to "explain away" each individual eyewitness,
> Bud... but you have to be far too dishonest with their statements.
You only produced only one witness who claimed to see the cleaning
first-hand. He admitted his view wasn`t a good one.
> Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth?
Why not just admit that your only concern is latching onto crackpot
premises?
Anthony Marsh
I think the Primenet web site is now defunct.
> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
>
>
> Vince Palamara :-)
>
> *************************************************************************
>
> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how Mr. Harris
> is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that he's attempting to
> contradict.
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Ben Holmes
Seems pretty clear in the photo. People were *not* that far away. Speculate
all you wish, but anyone can look at the photos and see that spectators were
simply not that far away.
>If he didn`t
>actualy observe them mopping up blood, then it`s just an assumption on
>his part, right?
It would be if he didn't *STATE* that this is exactly what he saw.
"I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK
SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN..."
>Is there any way he could have witnessed mopping up of
>blood in the backseat the way he describes his vantage point for the
>event?
Why not? Are you blind? Do you suppose MacNeil was blind?
>> Of course, photos showed a crowd of people that were probably no more
>> than 15-20 feet away, quite close enough to see what was seen and
>> reported... To say nothing of the photos, which I'm quite sure weren't
>> taken by the Secret Service or the DPD. And yet, they show quite a bit
>> of detail, don't they?
>
> Yah, they do,
Then your speculation that people could not have seen the cleaning of the limo
THAT THEY ASSERT THEY SAW is simply rubbish, isn't it?
>of the putting on of the roof. Nothing that can be
>clearly discerned as cleaning the limo.
Nope. There was no *photo* of the limo being cleaned. What you have is
eyewitness testimony and eyewitness statements, corroborated by a photo of the
bucket of water next to the limo.
>To clean the backseat, one
>would need to either get in the back, or lean way over the door to
>reach into the back. Any pictures of anything like this?
Nope. No-one has stated that there were. Are you attempting to argue that
because there was no photo showing the limo being cleaned, that it wasn't???
And if there *had* been a photo of someone leaning in with a white rag in his
hand - you'd suggest that he was merely removing a purse...
Photos can be deceptive... but you can't get around the multiple, independent,
corroborating accounts of the eyewitnesses... not and be honest, anyway...
>> What you are down to is arguing that an eyewitness could not have seen
>> what he described...
>
> Yah, it seems obvious that from his vantage point, he couldn`t see
>what he describes.
And black is white, water is dry, the sky is polka-dotted, and everyone but you
is a fool....
When you are so desperate that you have to simply start calling eyewitnesses
liars - then it's clear that you've lost...
>> Anyone who looks at these photos, and tries to believe *YOUR* argument that
>>someone standing close enough to take these pictures could not have figured out
>> that the limo was being washed, or was *confused* into believing this was
>> happening, is as much a kook as you are.
>
> Of course, Ben, people always draw correct conclusions from the
>events they witnessed.
Multiple, independent, and corroborative.
It's rather amusing to see you stretching your arguments now...
>> >It may have appeared
>> >they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance.
>>
>> Again... more speculation... how sad...
>>
>> And you have *NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER* for the curious lack of
>> eyewitness testimony asserting that policemen were merely washing
>> blood off their uniform, or whatever...
>
> Yes, that is a fact that out of all the events and conversations
>that may have occurred in that Parkland parking lot, much much than 1%
>was recorded. What did the policeman who was helping the nurse with the
>gurney hear the man who supposedly ask for a bucket of water say? Where
>is the testimony of the couple of hundred people milling around outside
>of Parkland. You`ve produced one actual witness who said he aw the
>cleaning,
Untrue. Why lie about it, Bud?
>and he describes a scene in which he could not directly
>observe the cleaning.
Again, untrue. As anyone who looks at the photos can easily judge. Desperate,
aren't you?
>> >Another
>> >thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
>> >windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
>> >cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
>> >roll them up to put the roof on.
>>
>> More silly speculation...
>
> Well, where is the minute by minutes reports of the activities of
>all people concerned. You have a very small amount of information, and
>you are claiming that it rock solid establishes something.
Sorry Bud, you lost this one. The evidence that the limo was washed at Parkland
is *OVERWHELMING*.
This illustrates quite well why you are a LNT'er.
And even better illustrates what it *takes* to be a LNT'er.
>> >Activity like this might appear that
>> >they were cleaning the back from a distance.
>>
>>
>> Speculation piled on top of speculation...
>
> <snicker> And what is it when you conclude this was a willful
>attempt to destroy evidence?
The only reasonable explanation of the facts.
I note that you haven't provided *ANY* other explanation for the speed with
which this was done.
>I`d say the possibilities I`m putting
>forth are only around a thousand times more reasonable than your
>crackpot speculation
Oh? That the cops were washing their goggles, and a number of people mistook
that to think that the limo was being washed?
That even the Secret Service was complaining that the limo had been washed -
when it was only goggles?
Nah... perhaps I'm lampooning your silly theory unfairly.
Go ahead, Bud: List your theory right here:
Be sure to fit in *ALL* the eyewitness testimony - how they misunderstood what
they heard, how they misunderstood what they saw, and who was just flat lying.
The number of improbabilities that you are forced to believe in simply boggle
the mind.
>> >> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get
>> >> a bucket of water; he complied;
>> >
>> > Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
>> >is apparent. Why it was requested is the question.
>>
>>
>> Not if you actually pay attention to the eyewitnesses, it isn't.
>>
>> You ignore and deny the mutually corroborating, independent, eyewitness
>> accounts to latch on to explanations THAT HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
>> TO SUPPORT IT WHATSOEVER!
>>
>> But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculating... carry on...
>
> Ok. But you are really only presenting one eyewitness to the
>supposed cleaning,
And you're a liar.
Robert MacNeil
Hugh Sidey
Don Gardner
Jim Bishop (more accurately, the Secret Service agents he interviewed)
>and a nurse who remembers a request she didn`t fulfil.
Lied, did she?
>> >There were
>> >motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
>> >getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
>>
>>
>> And not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* who describes what you are now speculating.
>>
>> Do you still think that lurkers might judge you to be honest?
>
> Why would you think a cop cleaning his goggles, or a SS man rinsing
>off his hands would appear in the record?
Because bringing a bucket of water outside next to the limo - where there was a
crowd of people watching, then proceeding to wash goggles or uniforms would have
been sufficiently *UNUSUAL* to have provoked comments.
Why do I have to point out the obvious, Bud?
>(It never ceases to amaze me
>that Oz takes his rifle to work and shoots some people, and it somehow
>becomes relevant if a cop washes his hands at the hospital afterwards.
It is when you try to invent things that have no evidence for it in order to
argue against something that DOES have multiple, independent, corroborative
eyewitness testimony.
>It show what the micro-analyzation of this event has taken things to).
Get over it, Bud.
The limo was washed.
>> >> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone
>> >> to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but
>> >> was so nervous and excited she forgot about it;
>> >
>> > Yes , it would have been hectic.
>>
>>
>> And yet, someone thought to ask for a bucket of water within the first
>> minute or two. Must have been following a well thought out plan, eh?
>
> Reject my speculation as sad, yet you leap to this crackpot
>speculation,eh, Ben?
What's "crackpot" about pointing out the speed with which someone tried to clean
the evidence?
>A bucket of water is useless for cleaning the
>limo, unless the intent was to throw it across the trunk. A bucket of
>water is useful to rinse of ones hands, though.
Your first speculation that a "cleaning station" for cops was put outside next
to the limo - now you're trying out the idea that they were all washing their
hands...
You're going from silly to sillier...
>> >Possible the request was something
>> >like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
>> >like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
>> >cleaning.
>>
>>
>> Yep... simply *deny* what eyewitnesses state... even when it's independently
>> corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses...
>
> You have more than one first hand witness to the cleaning of the
>limo?
Yep... listed them, too.
I can imagine that perhaps some reporters were getting their facts second hand,
but not all of them. It's in the testimony that the reporters were there.
You're going to have to prove that they didn't see what they reported, Bud.
>> Speculate on other possibilities that have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*
>> for them...
>
> Why would you expect to be able to firmly reconstruct events from
>only a few sentences from a few of the hundreds of witnesses in the
>Parkland parking lot?
I'm not "reconstructing", Bud.
I'm merely listening when they say that the limo was washed.
It's *YOU* that's trying to construct *any* other reason for that bucket.
And failing miserably...
>> The improbabilities you have to believe boggle the mind...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was
>> >> set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and
>> >> tried to wash the blood from the car.";
>> >
>> > Note the date.
>>
>> Yep... magazines generally *do* have a lead time.
What, no comment? Did you simply forget that magazines aren't published with
the speed of newspapers?
>> >This could be just second-hand information from
>> >MacNeil.
>>
>>
>> Who's book was published in 1988. I rather doubt if the book was the
>> source. So do you suppose that MacNeil was holding a press conference
>> there at Parkland? Telling everyone else who was there what they were
>> seeing?
>
> I`m sure MacNeil never breathed a word to anyone about what he
>thought he saw until he put it in his book. The point is, you don`t
>know whether these other news reports are based on MacNeil`s
>observaions or first hand observations of the other reporters.
What I *know* is what the eyewitnesses stated.
It's *YOU* that has to call them all liars...
>> You *do* know that there were reporters there, right? You *do* know
>> that there were more than just one or two, right?
>
> I just don`t know if the reporters who wrote these other reports of
>the limo cleaning were there. Do you?
Nah... the ones who where there didn't write anything... only reporters who
*weren't* there reported on what they didn't see.
The *stupidities* that you are forced to believe in order to be a LNT'er simply
boggle the mind.
Do you enjoy the attention, Bud? Or are you simply monumentally stupid?
>> >Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
>> >the time.
>>
>>
>> When speculation is your best argument, and denying what eyewitnesses
>> assert is your only defense... what can anyone say?
>
> Does Hugh Sidney, anywhere in his report, claim to have been an
>eyewitness to the events at Parkland?
Claiming he lied, Bud?
>> >> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had
>> >> to be wiped from the limousine";
>> >
>> > Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
>> >based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
>>
>>
>> More speculation...
>
> Yah, it is merely speculation that they weren`t all based on
>MacNeil`s observations.
From his 1988 book? Or from his press conference?
It's not "speculation" to believe that when a reporter describes a scene, that
he was there reporting...
>> When you have to imagine that Parkland didn't have any reporters covering
>> this story, despite eyewitness testimony - you illustrate the dishonesty
>> that you must sink to in order to avoid the obvious.
>
> Can you tell reporting from first hand observation from reports
>compiled from sources?
Speculating again? Based on *what* evidence do you assign *any* of the news
stories to second hand?
>MacNeil`s report is obviously first hand. The
>other report may or may not be. Of course you are free to assume they
>are based on first hand observation, and I`ll point out that this is
>only supposition.
When speculation is your only resource, you're getting desperate.
>> >> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the
>> >> police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water
>> >> stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
>> >
>> > "suggesting"?
>>
>>
>> Yep... quite clearly Tom Wicker didn't get there soon enough to see
>> the washing of the limo.
>
> Then why was he included in a list of people who support that the
>limo was cleaned. To beef it up so it appears more substantial? That
>there was a bucket of water near the limo is documented by photos. In
>fact, it`s position near the limo might be what led to some of the
>reports that the limo was cleaned. But, it
>is in a terrible spot for cleaning the backseat of pools of blood,
>wouldn`t you agree. They use whatever iten they are using for the
>mopping, then transport the blood soaked item several feet to the rear
>of the car to rinse it off. Wouldn`y blood and gore drip down the
>fronts of their nice suits? If the bucket was used for the purpose you
>describe, wouldn`t it be more efficient to have the bucket closer to
>the action?
Getting more desperate by the minute, Bud. Perhaps you should call on Robert
Harris to help you...
>> It *did* happen within just minutes of the arrival, if you've been
>> paying attention to the eyewitness testimony.
>
> Is the time fixed for this event?
Yep... I've quoted the testimony, if you take the time, you can learn the rest
of it. Try volume 18, starting around page 731...
>I see a request for water that
>was not acted on within minutes of the arrival, is all. When was the
>water actually brought out?
I'll leave this to you as a rather simply exercise in research. You should be
able to narrow it down quite well if you pay attention.
>> Tom Wicker clearly didn't see the washing of the limo, as others did...
>> and must have missed the "MacNeil Press Conference" you imagine.
>
> I have the vivid kind of imagination that can picture reports
>socially talking amongst themselves, comparing notes and observations.
>The cleaning of the limo wouldn`t have been the kind of scoop to
>guardedly keep to one`s self.
Desperate! Keep going, Bud!
>> >Like I said, there would have been blood on the
>> >motorcycle cops and possibly on the SS agents who touched the limo.
>>
>>
>> A rather silly suggestion that you aren't the first to come up with. Robert
>> Harris beat you to it... and he was probably not the first either...
>>
>> Imagining a "cleaning station" being set up with a single bucket, and just
>>coincidently next to the limo that eyewitnesses reported being cleaned, is just
>> the sort of improbable situation that LNT'ers have to believe.
>
> Why wouldn`t the bucket be placed where the people needing to rinse
>their hands might need it?
Think about it, Bud.
>> Don't mind that not ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS described any policemen
>> washing off blood from *their* uniform from that bucket... and
>> completely ignore the simple solution of walking into the hospital
>> that surely had restrooms...
>
> Doubt the SS wanted a lot of people, even police, going in and out.
These WERE the SS, Bud. As for motorcycle cops that were bloody, how many do
you imagine that there were?
>> Yet this is the sort of speculation that LNT'ers have to imagine to
>> get around the obvious...
>
> It`s pretty obvious that a bucket of water was pretty useless by
>itself to clean the limo.
Untrue. The eyewitnesses asserted that this was EXACTLY what was used.
>Was the SS using their ties to mop up the blood?
No, they were using the 5x7 white rag with a "P" engraved in the corner.
>> >> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
>> >> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
>> >> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
>> >
>> > Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies?
>>
>>
>> As is clear, the Secret Service... but you have to pay attention.
>
> So, a bogus report was included to prop up the idea the limo was
>cleaned.
What "bogus" report?
>>The Secret Service could hardly complain to Jim Bishop that they regretted their
>> destruction of evidence... The blame had to be placed elsewhere. Maybe in
>> LNT'er world those who commit criminal acts brag about them to authors...
>
> What is the word for this type of crackpot musing? Oh, right,
>"speculation".
The sheer stupidity that you exhibit is rather funny, Bud! Keep it up!
This is really quite simple... the SS washed the limo. This is a crime. They
aren't going to admit it.
>> And yet, it's quite clear that Jim Bishop was getting the information
>> that the limo *HAD* been cleaned. And was getting this information
>> from one of the very few sources that would know the truth beyond any doubt.
>
> There you go with the assumptions. He doesn`t say where he got the
>concept that the SS was sorry that orderlies cleaned the limo from.
Why, he got it from the janitor at the Trade Mart, of course!
You're going to have to do better than this, Bud. Stupidity piled upon
stupidity isn't going to impress any lurkers...
>You only assume the source was the SS (as if the "SS" was one person, with
>one mouth).
No, it was the janitor... How stupid *are* you?
>> But this is simple... don't you bother to *think* about something before
>> commenting?
>>
>> I guess you'll just have to call the Secret Service liars...
>
> Your lack of imagination is staggering. Is that the only option you
>see? Was this spokesman for the SS that expressed regret for orderlies
>cleaning the limo even at Parkland? Perhaps you should establish the
>basics taking leaps off this information. Like, who was the source, and
>were they at Parkland?
It was the janitor at the Trade Mart. Tell us, Bud, just how many liars are
there in this listing of eyewitnesses to the cleaning of the limo?
Shall we compare the number to the number of eyewitnesses that state that LHO
had a rifle?
If people judged eyewitnesses the way *YOU* do, there is no case against LHO at
all.
In fact, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that JFK isn't still the
President...
>> You see... I *know* they lied about *who* cleaned the limo... but *YOU*
>> have to imagine that they lied and created the whole story ... and it
>> just happened to be corroborated by eyewitnesses.
>
> I see it as a report that contains information that didn`t happen.
>Only CT could think that a bogus report supports their premise.
Stupidity doesn't just rain... it pours...
>> Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> >You have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum?
>>
>>
>> No, there are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the
>> limo. Why do you need to lie about the evidence, Bud?
>
> You produced reports of both events happening.
No. There are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the limo.
I can repeat it another dozen times if you're too illiterate to read it the
second time...
>If you thought the
>information in this source was bogus, you shouldn`t have included it.
Stupid, aren't you?
If eyewitnesses don't report the same identical thing, even though they have
different motivations - simply disregard 'em all.
But this is the way LNT'ers *have* to treat the eyewitness testimony.
>> What you have is a self-serving declaration by the Secret Service, who
>> had to blame it on *someone* else.
>
> That is how a crackpot might choose to view it, yes.
Nah... I'll agree with you. THE LIMO WAS WASHED... but it was hospital
orderlies that did it.
But I know you'll be a hypocrite, and refuse to believe this as well...
>> There are *NO* eyewitnesses who stated that anyone
>> other than the Secret Service was cleaning the limo.
>
> Then it was shoddy work for Jim Bishop to include it in his book,
>wasn`t it?
Illiterate, aren't you?
>> It *was*, clearly, the original plan... they *asked* Shirley Randall
>> to do it... but their plan got fouled up when she forgot...
>
> Yah, Ben knows what *they* are thinking, the sure sign of a
>crackpot. Lets look at another possibility, pure speculation mind you,
>but one more fixed in the real world instead of indulging in wild
>flights of fantasy. "A man" asks nurse Shirley Randall for a bucket of
>water (but not rags, the other necessary item for car cleaning). It is
>worded something like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with?"
Ah, but this is *NOT* what the Secret Service actually asked Randall. Calling
her a liar, aren't you?
>Now, she sees the black shiny cars, and possibly the gore covered
>backseat of the limo,
Oh? Can you cite for this?
>and assumes the cleaning needed in the mess in
>the limo.
She didn't *need* to assume. She reported what she was asked. You have to lie
about it in order to argue against it.
>She doesn`t forget, she tells an orderly that they want a
>bucket outside to clean the mess in the limo, and then forgets that she
>relayed the request.
A purely imagined scenario, with *NO* evidence.
>The orderly gets the bucket of water, and when
>carrying it out, a reporter, hungry for any tidbit of information he
>could get, asks what it is for. Orderly replies that the men asked for
>it to clean the car. Reporter reports limo cleaning.
And the reporter needs to ask about the bucket of water when he is *SEEING* the
limo being washed...
>> >Does anyone
>> >else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
>>
>>
>> The answer, for any lurkers who took the time to read the quotes
>> provided, is clearly "no". But don't let the facts disturb your spin,
>> Bud...
>
> Who included this report of orderlies cleaning the limo? wasn`t me.
But most people are capable of drawing the right conclusions.
>> >Seems a photo of this would exist.
>>
>> If you were dealing with eyewitnesses, yes, you might have a point. But
>> asking for a photo of the Secret Service's designated patsy is like asking
>> for a photo of *ANY* DPD officer cleaning his goggles or uniform or
>> motorcycle using the bucket.
>
> My point was that orderlies cleaning the backseat would be a photo
>oppotunity I would expect someone to capture.
Silly...
>> >And it`s hard to imagine them
>> >entering to clean the limo after the top was put on.
>>
>> Don't *need* to imagine this... no eyewitness reported it. But don't let the
>> facts stop your speculations...
>>
>> Imagining that the top was put on *first*, and only then could the limo be
>> washed, and arguing that the it's difficult to imagine this - is a silly
>> argument.
>>
>>Why not simply argue that the car wash was 1/4 mile further down the road, and
>> we don't have a photo of the limo at the car wash, therefore the limo wasn't
>> washed?
>
>> It would make as much sense...
>>
>>
>> >> 8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988
>> >> edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the
>> >> back seat with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated.";
>> >
>> > "Contemplated" means it wasn`t done. This source claims no cleaning
>> >was done, why was it included?
>>
>>
>> Why not? I well understand the LNT'er tendency to disregard anything that
>>doesn't fit your niche theory... but people looking for the truth gather *ALL*
>> the evidence.
>>
>> You wish to believe a non-eyewitness over those who were there... merely
>> illustrates your biases...
>
> No, I was merely questioning why this was offered, it is information
>to the effect that the limo wasn`t cleaned,
No, it's additional corroboration for the fact that the story was going around
about what happened.
>which makes it odd to
>include in a list of things supporting that the limo had been cleaned.
Face it Bud... the limo *was* cleaned.
>> Why not try thinking of who "contemplated" washing the limo within
>> minutes of the arrival of a dying President to Parkland?
>
> According to Manchester, someone who thought better of it.
And according to the eyewitnesses, Manchester (who wasn't there) was putting
spin on the story.
>> And *why* washing the limo was so important to someone?
>>
>> If you want to speculate, why not do it with *FACTS* supporting it?
>
> Believe it or not, I have no desire to indulge in crackpot thinking,
>thank you very much.
You do so all the time, Bud.
>> This is also, of course, more evidence that your silly theory that the
>> bucket was merely for policemen to wash up in is just that. No one
>> is "contemplating" washing their goggles...
>
> And no one is cleaning the limo either.
Then you must believe that the eyewitnesses who assert otherwise are all lying.
Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
>> But don't put evidence together, Bud... it will quickly turn you into
>> a CT'er...
>
> This whole case can be seen as a simple trip to the local store.
>Since Ct feel the trip is too easy and ordinary, they opted to drive
>past the obvious destination in search of something better. They`ve
>been meadering aimlessly ever since. They seem to enjoy the scenery so
>much that they don`t realize they are getting further and further away
>from their expresed destination.
> In any case, you seem to feel I should leap to extraordinary
>conclusions from fragments of sketchy information.
Photographs, multiple, independent, corroborative eyewitnesses?
"Sketchy" indeed!
>You have the tip of
>the iceberg, and you think from that you know the eact size and weight
>of the whole thing. If you were to produce affidavits from a number of
>people, cops, bystanders, ect of these events, then I would conclude it
>is an established occurance. What did the cop who was helping the nurse
>hear the man say when he asked for the bucket? If you could produce
>something from him saying he heard the same thing, then I would
>consider it corroborated. And if there was in existance some testimony
>that conflicted with that nurse`s account, would CT produce it?
ROTFLMAO!!! You're complaining that I'm including quotes that I shouldn't have,
and now musing that a CT'er might not include contradictory quotes.
Does your stupidity know any bounds?
This is really simple, and the evidence, considering that no-one thought
anything strange or unusual was happening, and over 40 years ago, is
overwhelming.
It even includes corroboration in the form of photographs...
Yet you are forced to deny, deny, deny... LOL!!
>> >> 9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
>> >> Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance
>> >> of a DPD motorcycle officer---at Parkland:
>> >
>> > Actually, it appears in the photos like regular Dallas police helped
>> >put on the top, the motorcycle cops are only watching.
>>
>>
>> Judging quite a bit by a snapshot in time, aren't you?
>>
>> And would you like to explain why the photo listed below (pg 36) shows a
>> police officer with the bubbletop in his hand, WEARING A HELMET???
>
> I`ll look again. The site I was looking at had the cops in caps
>helping, and it appeared the helmeted cops were only watching. There
>are only five or six pictures, but I think there are more because I saw
>some elsewhere in Marsh`s collection which were too tiny to tell
>anything other than they were different from the ones I viewed on
>Lancer.
I *gave* the cite. If you can't look up the cites, you should be more careful
about asserting things you don't know about.
>> Do you really suppose that "regular Dallas police" wore helmets? And do
>> you suppose that the police officer wearing a hat in the background was
>> really the motorcycle cop?
>
> Do you have a place on the internet I can view that picture? I`m
>interested in seeing any and all outside of Parkland.
Try buying the book.
If you were honest, I'd take the time to scan it and post it. Perhaps someone
will take pity on you - but to be honest, you aren't worth the time.
>> >> they are pictured in the infamous
>> >> photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination
>> >> File" by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo,
>> >> different angle in UPI's "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel
>> >> ("Kennedy In Texas" video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges
>>>> film; for the bucket still photo: http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
>> >> [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at White House Garage 11/22/63]
>> >> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
>> >
>> > There are a couple pictures of the bucket by the rear left tire of
>> >the limo. It is there for at least 2 pictures, but it isn`t there in
>> >later picture. Likely it was moved because it was under foot when they
>> >put the top on the limo.
>>
>>
>> Could be... when you're finished washing the limo, you don't need the bucket
>> anymore.
>
> Where precisely was the area being cleaned?
What did the eyewitnesses say, Bud?
>> >> Vince Palamara :-)
>> >>
>> >> *************************************************************************
>> >>
>> >> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how
>> >> Mr. Harris is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that
>> >> he's attempting to contradict.
>>
>>
>> It's fun to watch you attempt to "explain away" each individual eyewitness,
>> Bud... but you have to be far too dishonest with their statements.
>
> You only produced only one witness who claimed to see the cleaning
>first-hand.
Untrue.
>He admitted his view wasn`t a good one.
Untrue.
>> Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth?
>
> Why not just admit that your only concern is latching onto crackpot
>premises?
What's "crackpot" about eyewitnesses who report what they saw? Is it the fact
that what they saw is inconvenient to you?
Bud
How far away would you need to not be able to see the blood being
mopped up in the backseat? I don`t think you could tell exactly what
they were doing unless you were right up next to them, in order to see
down into the area the blood was.
> >If he didn`t
> >actualy observe them mopping up blood, then it`s just an assumption on
> >his part, right?
>
>
> It would be if he didn't *STATE* that this is exactly what he saw.
He did. But was he in a position to actually see the SS mopping up
blood? The position he indicates suggests he was not.
> "I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK
> SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN..."
Actually, it was the limo he was taken out of. And a curious use of
the word "starting". What is the srart of such a process, getting a
bucket of water?
> >Is there any way he could have witnessed mopping up of
> >blood in the backseat the way he describes his vantage point for the
> >event?
>
>
> Why not? Are you blind? Do you suppose MacNeil was blind?
I can`t see the mess in the backseat in any of the picture taken at
Parkland . Why would I think his vantage could see better, when he
indicates it wasn`t?
> >> Of course, photos showed a crowd of people that were probably no more
> >> than 15-20 feet away, quite close enough to see what was seen and
> >> reported... To say nothing of the photos, which I'm quite sure weren't
> >> taken by the Secret Service or the DPD. And yet, they show quite a bit
> >> of detail, don't they?
> >
> > Yah, they do,
>
>
> Then your speculation that people could not have seen the cleaning of the limo
> THAT THEY ASSERT THEY SAW is simply rubbish, isn't it?
No, for the reason I just gave. The mess in the backseat can be see
in the photo taken looking down into the limo. MacNeil indicates he
never got close enough to do this.
> >of the putting on of the roof. Nothing that can be
> >clearly discerned as cleaning the limo.
>
> Nope. There was no *photo* of the limo being cleaned.
I`m I wrong when I think you indicated that the one photo with the
bucket in it was them cleaning the limo?
> What you have is
> eyewitness testimony and eyewitness statements, corroborated by a photo of the
> bucket of water next to the limo.
I won`t give an URL (because it likely wouldn`t work), but I`ll
direct you to where I`m looking at these Parkland photos. It`s Robin
Unger`s "JFK Assassination Image Galleries". There is 5 or 6 (one
appears to be a duplicate)
photos of the limo outside Parkland. It appears to me chronologically
(judging by people, the trunk being open, the top being on, ect) that
the bucket is not there when the roof putting on process starts, then
it is there for two photos, then it is gone when the process is
completed. Just a little aside.
> >To clean the backseat, one
> >would need to either get in the back, or lean way over the door to
> >reach into the back. Any pictures of anything like this?
>
>
> Nope. No-one has stated that there were. Are you attempting to argue that
> because there was no photo showing the limo being cleaned, that it wasn't???
Not really, although it seems worth a photo if someone had a camera.
I was just trying to get a handle on the mechanics of such cleaning. I
see three ways to get to any backseat cleaning to consider. Getting in
the backseat, leaning in, or opening a door. Getting in seems unlikey,
you`d get covered in gore. Leaning in would make for a stretch, as the
mess is located centrally. Opening the left door seems unlikey, as the
puppet is propped against it on that side. Like I said, just thinking
out loud what the mechanics of this process would entail, as no real
details are given.
> And if there *had* been a photo of someone leaning in with a white rag in his
> hand - you'd suggest that he was merely removing a purse...
I wouldn`t expect a rag used to mop up blood to be white, would you?
> Photos can be deceptive... but you can't get around the multiple, independent,
> corroborating accounts of the eyewitnesses... not and be honest, anyway...
As if honesty is a consideration here. You don`t have multiple,
independant,corroborating reports about the cleaning of the limo. You
have one that appears to be, and others that may or may not be.
> >> What you are down to is arguing that an eyewitness could not have seen
> >> what he described...
> >
> > Yah, it seems obvious that from his vantage point, he couldn`t see
> >what he describes.
>
>
> And black is white, water is dry, the sky is polka-dotted, and everyone but you
> is a fool....
Can you see the gore in the backseat in any pictures taken at
Parkland other than ones that may have been taken by people right up to
limo taken down in? Did MacNeil indicate he got right up to the limo?
> When you are so desperate that you have to simply start calling eyewitnesses
> liars - then it's clear that you've lost...
It is only your limited imagination that makes "liar" the only
option.
> >> Anyone who looks at these photos, and tries to believe *YOUR* argument that
> >>someone standing close enough to take these pictures could not have figured out
> >> that the limo was being washed, or was *confused* into believing this was
> >> happening, is as much a kook as you are.
> >
> > Of course, Ben, people always draw correct conclusions from the
> >events they witnessed.
>
>
> Multiple,
Only one first hand account to the cleaning.
> independent,
Because you determined there was no interaction between these people?
> and corroborative.
The others don`t corroborate MacNeil if he is the only source. The
nurse, who says she didn`t order a bucket to be taken out, does not say
she saw any limo cleaning.
> It's rather amusing to see you stretching your arguments now...
I am forced to expand on the points you have trouble grasping.
> >> >It may have appeared
> >> >they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance.
> >>
> >> Again... more speculation... how sad...
> >>
> >> And you have *NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER* for the curious lack of
> >> eyewitness testimony asserting that policemen were merely washing
> >> blood off their uniform, or whatever...
> >
> > Yes, that is a fact that out of all the events and conversations
> >that may have occurred in that Parkland parking lot, much much than 1%
> >was recorded. What did the policeman who was helping the nurse with the
> >gurney hear the man who supposedly ask for a bucket of water say? Where
> >is the testimony of the couple of hundred people milling around outside
> >of Parkland. You`ve produced one actual witness who said he saw the
> >cleaning,
>
> Untrue. Why lie about it, Bud?
Show something from any witness other than MacNeil who claims to
have been a first hand witness to the limo being cleaned.
> >and he describes a scene in which he could not directly
> >observe the cleaning.
>
>
> Again, untrue. As anyone who looks at the photos can easily judge. Desperate,
> aren't you?
Not at all. In which photo can you point out the gore in the
backseat? That is the target of the cleaning you alledge, correct? That
can`t be seen in the photo, correct?
> >> >Another
> >> >thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
> >> >windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
> >> >cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
> >> >roll them up to put the roof on.
> >>
> >> More silly speculation...
> >
> > Well, where is the minute by minutes reports of the activities of
> >all people concerned. You have a very small amount of information, and
> >you are claiming that it rock solid establishes something.
>
>
> Sorry Bud, you lost this one. The evidence that the limo was washed at Parkland
> is *OVERWHELMING*.
Surely enough convince you, anyway.
> This illustrates quite well why you are a LNT'er.
>
> And even better illustrates what it *takes* to be a LNT'er.
And your willingness to latch onto this crackpot theory about
cleaning the limo with the purpose of destroying evidence illustrates
why you are a CT.
> >> >Activity like this might appear that
> >> >they were cleaning the back from a distance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Speculation piled on top of speculation...
> >
> > <snicker> And what is it when you conclude this was a willful
> >attempt to destroy evidence?
>
>
> The only reasonable explanation of the facts.
Yes, that you consider this a reasonable answer illustartes better
than anything I could say that you are truly a kook.
> I note that you haven't provided *ANY* other explanation for the speed with
> which this was done.
I must have missed the timeline you presented of these events.
> >I`d say the possibilities I`m putting
> >forth are only around a thousand times more reasonable than your
> >crackpot speculation
>
> Oh? That the cops were washing their goggles, and a number of people mistook
> that to think that the limo was being washed?
>
> That even the Secret Service was complaining that the limo had been washed -
> when it was only goggles?
>
> Nah... perhaps I'm lampooning your silly theory unfairly.
>
> Go ahead, Bud: List your theory right here:
>
> Be sure to fit in *ALL* the eyewitness testimony - how they misunderstood what
> they heard, how they misunderstood what they saw, and who was just flat lying.
The one report you gave said that the bucket of water by the limo
"suggests" it was being cleaned. It does. Seeing people messing around
the limo and seeing the bucket could lead them to believe the limo was
being cleaned. That is one possibility. That the backseat was a mess
would have been circulating around
I would think, both inside and outside of the hospital. Who said what
to who which led who to think what is not firmly established, we don`t
have every conversation documented to determine exactly how people
thought what they did. It only takes two assumptions by two people to
possibly account for this whole event. The nurse`s assumption that the
bucket request was for cleaning the limo, and MacNeil`s asumption that
the activity he witnessed around the limo was cleaning. That this
appears as some astronomically unlikely occurance, but that the SS
cleaned the limo with the motivation to destroy evidence of the
assassination illustrates only that you are a kook.
> The number of improbabilities that you are forced to believe in simply boggle
> the mind.
Yet, that it seems likely that the SS knew of the assassination
beforehand, or got orders immediately to clean the limo to destroy
evidence is the most probable explaination to you? I think I`ll stick
to my way of thinking, thank you very much, your thinking strikes me as
nuts. And it doesn`t ocur to you that you are casting blame for a
heinious crime on innocent men on the flimsiest of pretexts.
> >> >> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get
> >> >> a bucket of water; he complied;
> >> >
> >> > Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
> >> >is apparent. Why it was requested is the question.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not if you actually pay attention to the eyewitnesses, it isn't.
> >>
> >> You ignore and deny the mutually corroborating, independent, eyewitness
> >> accounts to latch on to explanations THAT HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
> >> TO SUPPORT IT WHATSOEVER!
> >>
> >> But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculating... carry on...
> >
> > Ok. But you are really only presenting one eyewitness to the
> >supposed cleaning,
>
>
> And you're a liar.
>
> Robert MacNeil
Said he saw the cleaning first hand.
> Hugh Sidey
Didn`t specifically state he observed the cleaning first hand.
> Don Gardner
Didn`t specifically state he observed the cleaning first hand.
> Jim Bishop (more accurately, the Secret Service agents he interviewed)
Reported something that didn`t happen.
> >and a nurse who remembers a request she didn`t fulfil.
>
>
> Lied, did she?
Do you have a problem with my characterization of her testimony?
> >> >There were
> >> >motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
> >> >getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
> >>
> >>
> >> And not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* who describes what you are now speculating.
> >>
> >> Do you still think that lurkers might judge you to be honest?
> >
> > Why would you think a cop cleaning his goggles, or a SS man rinsing
> >off his hands would appear in the record?
>
>
> Because bringing a bucket of water outside next to the limo - where there was a
> crowd of people watching,
Yes, lets look through the testimony of the crowd. Oops...
> then proceeding to wash goggles or uniforms would have
> been sufficiently *UNUSUAL* to have provoked comments.
Excellent. If it happened you would have seen it written. Of course
it may be written somewhere you haven`t read, or may not have been
written anywhere yet still happened.
> Why do I have to point out the obvious, Bud?
>
>
>
> >(It never ceases to amaze me
> >that Oz takes his rifle to work and shoots some people, and it somehow
> >becomes relevant if a cop washes his hands at the hospital afterwards.
>
>
> It is when you try to invent things that have no evidence for it in order to
> argue against something that DOES have multiple, independent, corroborative
> eyewitness testimony.
>
>
> >It show what the micro-analyzation of this event has taken things to).
>
>
> Get over it, Bud.
>
> The limo was washed.
>
>
> >> >> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone
> >> >> to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but
> >> >> was so nervous and excited she forgot about it;
> >> >
> >> > Yes , it would have been hectic.
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, someone thought to ask for a bucket of water within the first
> >> minute or two. Must have been following a well thought out plan, eh?
> >
> > Reject my speculation as sad, yet you leap to this crackpot
> >speculation,eh, Ben?
>
>
> What's "crackpot" about pointing out the speed with which someone tried to clean
> the evidence?
Why are you so certain that Randall is accurately quoting what the
man asked her? Did the cop helping her with the gurney corroborate what
was said? MacNeil doen`t corroborate what was asked, because Randall
says she was asked for personel to clean the limo, not the means to
clean the limo. Did orderlies clean the limo? If not, that is a
discrepancy, not corroboration.
> >A bucket of water is useless for cleaning the
> >limo, unless the intent was to throw it across the trunk. A bucket of
> >water is useful to rinse of ones hands, though.
>
>
> Your first speculation that a "cleaning station" for cops was put outside next
> to the limo - now you're trying out the idea that they were all washing their
> hands...
You think a bucket of water represents personel coming out of the
hospital to clean the limo? You do know the difference between
inanimate objects and people, right? I`m not sure precisely where the
bucket of water request came from, or who made it, or for what purpose
it was requested. Randall doesn`t say she was asked for a bucket of
water, she was (according to her affidavit) asked to provide personel
to clean the limo. This request was never followed up on, apparently.
Was it the person who asked for the personel the same person who
requested the bucket? Who knows? Could have been someone else, for some
other purpose than the one expressed to Randall (if she got that
purpose right).
So you have an unknown request by an unknown person to an orderly for a
bucket of water for an unknown purpose. After that, you have a witness
from a poor vantage point claiming to see things that seem to be need
to be observed from close up (to see down into the set area).
> You're going from silly to sillier...
It`s a slippery slope.
> >> >Possible the request was something
> >> >like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
> >> >like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
> >> >cleaning.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... simply *deny* what eyewitnesses state... even when it's independently
> >> corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses...
> >
> > You have more than one first hand witness to the cleaning of the
> >limo?
>
>
> Yep... listed them, too.
You do know that when a reporter reports an event, it doesn`t
necesarily mean he witnessed the event first hand, don`t you?
> I can imagine that perhaps some reporters were getting their facts second hand,
> but not all of them.
Perhaps the problem lies with your imagination.
> It's in the testimony that the reporters were there.
At the time of the supposed cleaning?
> You're going to have to prove that they didn't see what they reported, Bud.
Not to point out that it isn`t proven the reporters witnesses these
events first hand. I`ll accept MacNeil, the others are unestablished
first hand witnesses as far as I can tell.
> >> Speculate on other possibilities that have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*
> >> for them...
> >
> > Why would you expect to be able to firmly reconstruct events from
> >only a few sentences from a few of the hundreds of witnesses in the
> >Parkland parking lot?
>
>
> I'm not "reconstructing", Bud.
>
> I'm merely listening when they say that the limo was washed.
>
> It's *YOU* that's trying to construct *any* other reason for that bucket.
>
> And failing miserably...
Who requested the bucket? Who was asked for that bucket? Did the
unknown person who asked the unknown person for the bucket say what it
was for? There are gaps you gladly ignore, or fill in to suit.
> >> The improbabilities you have to believe boggle the mind...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was
> >> >> set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and
> >> >> tried to wash the blood from the car.";
> >> >
> >> > Note the date.
> >>
> >> Yep... magazines generally *do* have a lead time.
>
>
> What, no comment? Did you simply forget that magazines aren't published with
> the speed of newspapers?
Is it your opinion that the 29th issue was the first Time Magazine
with mention of the assassination?
> >> >This could be just second-hand information from
> >> >MacNeil.
> >>
> >>
> >> Who's book was published in 1988. I rather doubt if the book was the
> >> source. So do you suppose that MacNeil was holding a press conference
> >> there at Parkland? Telling everyone else who was there what they were
> >> seeing?
> >
> > I`m sure MacNeil never breathed a word to anyone about what he
> >thought he saw until he put it in his book. The point is, you don`t
> >know whether these other news reports are based on MacNeil`s
> >observaions or first hand observations of the other reporters.
>
>
> What I *know* is what the eyewitnesses stated.
And I know a few of your sources didn`t state to seeing the limo
cleaned first hand.
> It's *YOU* that has to call them all liars...
I wouldn`t dream of calling people liars with only incomplete and
sketchy information at my disposal. What kind of idiot would do that?
> >> You *do* know that there were reporters there, right? You *do* know
> >> that there were more than just one or two, right?
> >
> > I just don`t know if the reporters who wrote these other reports of
> >the limo cleaning were there. Do you?
>
>
> Nah... the ones who where there didn't write anything... only reporters who
> *weren't* there reported on what they didn't see.
Good point. How many reporters flocked to Parkland. How many
reporters say they say limo cleaning first hand? One is all I am aware
of...
> The *stupidities* that you are forced to believe in order to be a LNT'er simply
> boggle the mind.
Apparently you have the kind of mind that boggles easily.
> Do you enjoy the attention, Bud? Or are you simply monumentally stupid?
I can tell assumptions when I see them.
> >> >Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
> >> >the time.
> >>
> >>
> >> When speculation is your best argument, and denying what eyewitnesses
> >> assert is your only defense... what can anyone say?
> >
> > Does Hugh Sidney, anywhere in his report, claim to have been an
> >eyewitness to the events at Parkland?
>
>
> Claiming he lied, Bud?
Illiterate, aren`t you? If he never said he saw the limo cleaning
first hand, I can`t call the claim a lie.
> >> >> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had
> >> >> to be wiped from the limousine";
> >> >
> >> > Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
> >> >based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
> >>
> >>
> >> More speculation...
> >
> > Yah, it is merely speculation that they weren`t all based on
> >MacNeil`s observations.
>
>
> From his 1988 book? Or from his press conference?
If I had transcripts of everything MacNeil said to everyone he
talked to, I could probably tell you better.
> It's not "speculation" to believe that when a reporter describes a scene, that
> he was there reporting...
Doesn`t need to have actually witnessed an event first hand to
report it.
> >> When you have to imagine that Parkland didn't have any reporters covering
> >> this story, despite eyewitness testimony - you illustrate the dishonesty
> >> that you must sink to in order to avoid the obvious.
> >
> > Can you tell reporting from first hand observation from reports
> >compiled from sources?
>
> Speculating again? Based on *what* evidence do you assign *any* of the news
> stories to second hand?
Haven`t. Only pointed out that they aren`t established as first
hand, except for MacNeil.
> >MacNeil`s report is obviously first hand. The
> >other report may or may not be. Of course you are free to assume they
> >are based on first hand observation, and I`ll point out that this is
> >only supposition.
>
>
> When speculation is your only resource, you're getting desperate.
It is an assumption that the other newsmen other than MacNeil
witnessed limo cleaning first hand. Until you can establish this
assumption as fact, it remains an assumption.
> >> >> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the
> >> >> police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water
> >> >> stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
> >> >
> >> > "suggesting"?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... quite clearly Tom Wicker didn't get there soon enough to see
> >> the washing of the limo.
> >
> > Then why was he included in a list of people who support that the
> >limo was cleaned. To beef it up so it appears more substantial? That
> >there was a bucket of water near the limo is documented by photos. In
> >fact, it`s position near the limo might be what led to some of the
> >reports that the limo was cleaned. But, it
> >is in a terrible spot for cleaning the backseat of pools of blood,
> >wouldn`t you agree. They use whatever iten they are using for the
> >mopping, then transport the blood soaked item several feet to the rear
> >of the car to rinse it off. Wouldn`y blood and gore drip down the
> >fronts of their nice suits? If the bucket was used for the purpose you
> >describe, wouldn`t it be more efficient to have the bucket closer to
> >the action?
>
>
> Getting more desperate by the minute, Bud. Perhaps you should call on Robert
> Harris to help you...
This discussion has it`s quota of kooks, Ben. You represent fine.
> >> It *did* happen within just minutes of the arrival, if you've been
> >> paying attention to the eyewitness testimony.
> >
> > Is the time fixed for this event?
>
> Yep... I've quoted the testimony, if you take the time, you can learn the rest
> of it. Try volume 18, starting around page 731...
The bucket of water was brought out when? The request for it was
made when?
> >I see a request for water that
> >was not acted on within minutes of the arrival, is all. When was the
> >water actually brought out?
>
> I'll leave this to you as a rather simply exercise in research. You should be
> able to narrow it down quite well if you pay attention.
Yah, my bad, the request to the nurse was said to be for personel to
clean the limo, not water.
> >> Tom Wicker clearly didn't see the washing of the limo, as others did...
> >> and must have missed the "MacNeil Press Conference" you imagine.
> >
> > I have the vivid kind of imagination that can picture reports
> >socially talking amongst themselves, comparing notes and observations.
> >The cleaning of the limo wouldn`t have been the kind of scoop to
> >guardedly keep to one`s self.
>
>
> Desperate! Keep going, Bud!
That was it. People talk amongst themselves. The motorcycle cops all
got together and discussed what they had seen also. Common human
behavior.
> >> >Like I said, there would have been blood on the
> >> >motorcycle cops and possibly on the SS agents who touched the limo.
> >>
> >>
> >> A rather silly suggestion that you aren't the first to come up with. Robert
> >> Harris beat you to it... and he was probably not the first either...
> >>
> >> Imagining a "cleaning station" being set up with a single bucket, and just
> >>coincidently next to the limo that eyewitnesses reported being cleaned, is just
> >> the sort of improbable situation that LNT'ers have to believe.
> >
> > Why wouldn`t the bucket be placed where the people needing to rinse
> >their hands might need it?
>
>
> Think about it, Bud.
I don`t see the bucket in the earliest pictures at Parkland, only in
the later ones when the roof installing process has begun (by the
popped trunk, and obvious roof installing). Roof installing would
possibly cause the roof installers to get blood on their hands. They
may have wished to have a means handy in which to remove this blood.
> >> Don't mind that not ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS described any policemen
> >> washing off blood from *their* uniform from that bucket... and
> >> completely ignore the simple solution of walking into the hospital
> >> that surely had restrooms...
> >
> > Doubt the SS wanted a lot of people, even police, going in and out.
>
>
> These WERE the SS, Bud. As for motorcycle cops that were bloody, how many do
> you imagine that there were?
Three shown escorting the limo to Parkland right after the
assasination. Two shown in the pictures outside Parkland.
> >> Yet this is the sort of speculation that LNT'ers have to imagine to
> >> get around the obvious...
> >
> > It`s pretty obvious that a bucket of water was pretty useless by
> >itself to clean the limo.
>
>
> Untrue. The eyewitnesses asserted that this was EXACTLY what was used.
The only way to clean the backseat of a car with a bucket of water
only is to throw the water across the backseat. Is that what you think
happened?
> >Was the SS using their ties to mop up the blood?
>
>
> No, they were using the 5x7 white rag with a "P" engraved in the corner.
If the orderly didn`t bring rags, then the the SS men would use
thier hankies, is that it? Did they use mops to mop up the blood? Did
the bring sponges, in anticipation of needing to destroy this evidence?
> >> >> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
> >> >> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
> >> >> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
> >> >
> >> > Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies?
> >>
> >>
> >> As is clear, the Secret Service... but you have to pay attention.
> >
> > So, a bogus report was included to prop up the idea the limo was
> >cleaned.
>
>
> What "bogus" report?
You like "untrue" better. If Bishops says orderlies did something
that orderlies didn`t do, then what do you call it?
> >>The Secret Service could hardly complain to Jim Bishop that they regretted their
> >> destruction of evidence... The blame had to be placed elsewhere. Maybe in
> >> LNT'er world those who commit criminal acts brag about them to authors...
> >
> > What is the word for this type of crackpot musing? Oh, right,
> >"speculation".
>
>
> The sheer stupidity that you exhibit is rather funny, Bud! Keep it up!
And you keep on displaying those crackpot assumptions.
> This is really quite simple... the SS washed the limo.
Possibly, but hardly positively established. Not with only one sure
first hand account.
> This is a crime.
Crackpots on newsgroups are a poor choice to determine when crimes
are committed. Pools of blood in a backseat don`t necessarily tell
anything about the crime. It is unestablished that the FBI had the
science to determine much from the blood splatter on an untopped,
moving car in 1963, or even if they could tell much from it today.
Wind, air displacement from the car, ect, would all act to make any
findings dificult. Did the FBI even attempt to discern anything from
the pattern of the blood in the backseat? If the evidence isn`t even
analyzed using this science, what good is preserving it?
> They
> aren't going to admit it.
Who are *they*, specifically? Does Bishop supply an identity to
*they*?
> >> And yet, it's quite clear that Jim Bishop was getting the information
> >> that the limo *HAD* been cleaned. And was getting this information
> >> from one of the very few sources that would know the truth beyond any doubt.
> >
> > There you go with the assumptions. He doesn`t say where he got the
> >concept that the SS was sorry that orderlies cleaned the limo from.
>
>
> Why, he got it from the janitor at the Trade Mart, of course!
It may have been, as the source wasn`t named. You may not be aware
of this, but all it would take is someone claiming to have heard an SS
man claiming regret at allowing orderlies to clean the limo for it to
find it`s way into a crackpot conspiracy book. That why the source
needs to be specifically named, so it can be considered. Of course, a
crackpot might assume the source was the SS.
> You're going to have to do better than this, Bud. Stupidity piled upon
> stupidity isn't going to impress any lurkers...
Fuck them lurkers. Likely most are conspiracy kooks here anyway.
> >You only assume the source was the SS (as if the "SS" was one person, with
> >one mouth).
>
>
> No, it was the janitor... How stupid *are* you?
Smart enough to know you are ducking the issue. If Bishop named the
source in a footnote, or in the bibliography, what was it? If he didn`t
name the source, a janitor is as good a guess as any as to what it was.
> >> But this is simple... don't you bother to *think* about something before
> >> commenting?
> >>
> >> I guess you'll just have to call the Secret Service liars...
> >
> > Your lack of imagination is staggering. Is that the only option you
> >see? Was this spokesman for the SS that expressed regret for orderlies
> >cleaning the limo even at Parkland? Perhaps you should establish the
> >basics taking leaps off this information. Like, who was the source, and
> >were they at Parkland?
>
>
> It was the janitor at the Trade Mart. Tell us, Bud, just how many liars are
> there in this listing of eyewitnesses to the cleaning of the limo?
Bishop relates information you don`t think happened (orderlies
cleaning the limo), and doesn`t say what his source for this
information is. I am only pointing out what should be obvious to you.
> Shall we compare the number to the number of eyewitnesses that state that LHO
> had a rifle?
That was established with other evidence. Like photos.
> If people judged eyewitnesses the way *YOU* do, there is no case against LHO at
> all.
Just establish the basics before jumping to extraordinary
explainations. For instance, who specifically asked for a bucket of
water? Surely you can`t be trying to advance such an extraordinary
premise without this very basic, yet very key information, are you?
Once we have a specic person establish, then we can examine that
individual for possible motivations for asking for the water, but let`s
not get ahead of ourselves.
> In fact, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that JFK isn't still the
> President...
I`d have a hard time convincing some kooks that Bush is.
> >> You see... I *know* they lied about *who* cleaned the limo... but *YOU*
> >> have to imagine that they lied and created the whole story ... and it
> >> just happened to be corroborated by eyewitnesses.
> >
> > I see it as a report that contains information that didn`t happen.
> >Only CT could think that a bogus report supports their premise.
>
>
> Stupidity doesn't just rain... it pours...
You supplied a source you didn`t think happened to support your
premise. I only pointed that out.
> >> Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
> >>
> >>
> >> >You have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum?
> >>
> >>
> >> No, there are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the
> >> limo. Why do you need to lie about the evidence, Bud?
> >
> > You produced reports of both events happening.
>
>
>
> No. There are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the limo.
Then we can disregard Bishop on the matter. Yet, you cite from his
book.
> I can repeat it another dozen times if you're too illiterate to read it the
> second time...
Yah, you think a bogus report of hopsital workers cleaning the limo
says something. It does, that someone made a supposition based on
partial information. Maybe it was based on the observation of the
orderly carrying the bucket, and expanded upon.
> >If you thought the
> >information in this source was bogus, you shouldn`t have included it.
>
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
I wasn`t the one who included a source I didn`t believe was accurate
to support a premise.
> If eyewitnesses don't report the same identical thing, even though they have
> different motivations - simply disregard 'em all.
<snicker> There is no way SS men are going to be confused with
hospital orderlies, or vice versa. So, one source or the other was
wrong, likely from make poor assumptions from information. That should
be familar enough to you.
> But this is the way LNT'ers *have* to treat the eyewitness testimony.
What was the name of the eyewitness Bishop was citing?
> >> What you have is a self-serving declaration by the Secret Service, who
> >> had to blame it on *someone* else.
> >
> > That is how a crackpot might choose to view it, yes.
>
>
> Nah... I'll agree with you. THE LIMO WAS WASHED... but it was hospital
> orderlies that did it.
Bastards. They killed Kennedy, all kooks satisfied, lets call it a
day.
> But I know you'll be a hypocrite, and refuse to believe this as well...
You don`t believe hopital personel cleaned the limo, right? Neither
do I. Only I would cite that information I didn`t believe from a book.
Now, who is the hypocrite? Who is using false information to advance
their premise?
> >> There are *NO* eyewitnesses who stated that anyone
> >> other than the Secret Service was cleaning the limo.
> >
> > Then it was shoddy work for Jim Bishop to include it in his book,
> >wasn`t it?
>
>
> Illiterate, aren't you?
You don`t think it was poor research on Bishop`s part to include
such an obvious falsehood in his book?
> >> It *was*, clearly, the original plan... they *asked* Shirley Randall
> >> to do it... but their plan got fouled up when she forgot...
> >
> > Yah, Ben knows what *they* are thinking, the sure sign of a
> >crackpot. Lets look at another possibility, pure speculation mind you,
> >but one more fixed in the real world instead of indulging in wild
> >flights of fantasy. "A man" asks nurse Shirley Randall for a bucket of
> >water (but not rags, the other necessary item for car cleaning). It is
> >worded something like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with?"
>
>
> Ah, but this is *NOT* what the Secret Service actually asked Randall. Calling
> her a liar, aren't you?
Yah, my bad, "the man" (who`s identity is unestablished) asked for
personel to clean the car, according to her.
> >Now, she sees the black shiny cars, and possibly the gore covered
> >backseat of the limo,
>
>
> Oh? Can you cite for this?
She says she saw the black shiny cars when she went outside, and
that is when it sunk in who might have been shot. It is possible she
saw the backseat, as the limo was parked right in front of the door she
said she came out of. Are you saying this is impossible? You have this
"everything that appears in the record is true, and nothing that
doesn`t appear in the record could have happened" attitute.
> >and assumes the cleaning needed in the mess in
> >the limo.
>
> She didn't *need* to assume. She reported what she was asked.
Verbatum? What were the exact words the man said? Is this what the
cop who was with her said that the man had said.
> You have to lie
> about it in order to argue against it.
I only need to accurately chracterize what you present to argue
against what you present. Call assumptions "assumptions" and so forth.
> >She doesn`t forget, she tells an orderly that they want a
> >bucket outside to clean the mess in the limo, and then forgets that she
> >relayed the request.
>
> A purely imagined scenario, with *NO* evidence.
Then since we have no record of a bucket being requested, we must
assume no bucket was requested, right?
> >The orderly gets the bucket of water, and when
> >carrying it out, a reporter, hungry for any tidbit of information he
> >could get, asks what it is for. Orderly replies that the men asked for
> >it to clean the car. Reporter reports limo cleaning.
>
>
> And the reporter needs to ask about the bucket of water when he is *SEEING* the
> limo being washed...
Unless the reporter was inside at the time. This cleaning supposedly
happened early, right? Maybe before all reporters were ejected from
hospital? Sees orderly with bucket, asks what it is for? Or maybe the
reporter got the information of the orderly carrying the bucket out
from the orderly who brought the bucket out by questioning him later
on, or from someone who was in the hopspital who saw the bucket being
carried by the orderly. All variety of possibilies with huge chasms of
information missing. If we had minutely detailed accounts from all
parties, we could possibly reconstruct these things precisely.
> >> >Does anyone
> >> >else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
> >>
> >>
> >> The answer, for any lurkers who took the time to read the quotes
> >> provided, is clearly "no". But don't let the facts disturb your spin,
> >> Bud...
> >
> > Who included this report of orderlies cleaning the limo? Wasn`t me.
>
>
> But most people are capable of drawing the right conclusions.
From erroneous information? I`m sure CT will be able to.
Yah, stories have a way of "going around". Sometimes they don`t
travel so well.
> >which makes it odd to
> >include in a list of things supporting that the limo had been cleaned.
>
>
> Face it Bud... the limo *was* cleaned.
My best guess is that the process was started and quickly stopped
when someone thought better of it. The thinking was probably that it
was somehow disrespectful to display the President`s brains in a
parking lot. The first thought by one person was to clean up the mess,
the second, and probably better idea was to cover the mess. But, I
haven`t seen where any analyzation of the blood patterns was even
contemplated, or that any meaningful analysis could be done from the
smears or pools of blood in the backseat. Could have went through a
carwash with the roof off as far as the blood was concerned, the bullet
fragments and damage to the limo was the only evidence I`ve seen that
the FBI collected from the limo.
> >> Why not try thinking of who "contemplated" washing the limo within
> >> minutes of the arrival of a dying President to Parkland?
> >
> > According to Manchester, someone who thought better of it.
>
>
>
> And according to the eyewitnesses, Manchester (who wasn't there) was putting
> spin on the story.
I didn`t include his account in support of a premise he doesn`t
support.
> >> And *why* washing the limo was so important to someone?
> >>
> >> If you want to speculate, why not do it with *FACTS* supporting it?
> >
> > Believe it or not, I have no desire to indulge in crackpot thinking,
> >thank you very much.
>
>
> You do so all the time, Bud.
No, thats pointing out, not indulging.
> >> This is also, of course, more evidence that your silly theory that the
> >> bucket was merely for policemen to wash up in is just that. No one
> >> is "contemplating" washing their goggles...
> >
> > And no one is cleaning the limo either.
>
>
> Then you must believe that the eyewitnesses who assert otherwise are all lying.
>
> Come on, Bud, you can admit it.
You see lies everywhere, Ben, it`s your defining characteristic.
> >> But don't put evidence together, Bud... it will quickly turn you into
> >> a CT'er...
> >
> > This whole case can be seen as a simple trip to the local store.
> >Since Ct feel the trip is too easy and ordinary, they opted to drive
> >past the obvious destination in search of something better. They`ve
> >been meadering aimlessly ever since. They seem to enjoy the scenery so
> >much that they don`t realize they are getting further and further away
> >from their expresed destination.
> > In any case, you seem to feel I should leap to extraordinary
> >conclusions from fragments of sketchy information.
>
> Photographs, multiple, independent, corroborative eyewitnesses?
You have photographs of limo cleaning? Are you going to present
photos where no limo cleaning is shown as evidence of limo cleaning?
The other bits have been addressed.
> "Sketchy" indeed!
Indeed, indeed.
> >You have the tip of
> >the iceberg, and you think from that you know the eact size and weight
> >of the whole thing. If you were to produce affidavits from a number of
> >people, cops, bystanders, ect of these events, then I would conclude it
> >is an established occurance. What did the cop who was helping the nurse
> >hear the man say when he asked for the bucket? If you could produce
> >something from him saying he heard the same thing, then I would
> >consider it corroborated. And if there was in existance some testimony
> >that conflicted with that nurse`s account, would CT produce it?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! You're complaining that I'm including quotes that I shouldn't have,
> and now musing that a CT'er might not include contradictory quotes.
Yah, I don`t trust CT.
> Does your stupidity know any bounds?
Haven`t detected any. For instance, I spend an inordinate amount of
time in discussions with crackpots about a murder where the killer has
been dead for over 40 years.
> This is really simple, and the evidence, considering that no-one thought
> anything strange or unusual was happening, and over 40 years ago, is
> overwhelming.
>
> It even includes corroboration in the form of photographs...
>
> Yet you are forced to deny, deny, deny... LOL!!
I deny that.
> >> >> 9) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George
> >> >> Hickey: the two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance
> >> >> of a DPD motorcycle officer---at Parkland:
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it appears in the photos like regular Dallas police helped
> >> >put on the top, the motorcycle cops are only watching.
> >>
> >>
> >> Judging quite a bit by a snapshot in time, aren't you?
> >>
> >> And would you like to explain why the photo listed below (pg 36) shows a
> >> police officer with the bubbletop in his hand, WEARING A HELMET???
> >
> > I`ll look again. The site I was looking at had the cops in caps
> >helping, and it appeared the helmeted cops were only watching. There
> >are only five or six pictures, but I think there are more because I saw
> >some elsewhere in Marsh`s collection which were too tiny to tell
> >anything other than they were different from the ones I viewed on
> >Lancer.
>
>
> I *gave* the cite. If you can't look up the cites, you should be more careful
> about asserting things you don't know about.
Yah, I did look again, and it does appear that the motorcycle cops
are just watching. There are pictures that show the Dallas police in
regular caps assiting, though.
> >> Do you really suppose that "regular Dallas police" wore helmets? And do
> >> you suppose that the police officer wearing a hat in the background was
> >> really the motorcycle cop?
> >
> > Do you have a place on the internet I can view that picture? I`m
> >interested in seeing any and all outside of Parkland.
>
>
> Try buying the book.
Good advice.
> If you were honest, I'd take the time to scan it and post it. Perhaps someone
> will take pity on you - but to be honest, you aren't worth the time.
Fair enough. Not a big deal, I`m more than a little concerned about
my behavior when I start squinting at pictures of the limo at Parkland
anyway. Kooks heading down blind alleys chasing red herrings is one
thing, they just don`t know better. Following kooks down blind alleys
chasing red herrings is another, I should know better.
> >> >> they are pictured in the infamous
> >> >> photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination
> >> >> File" by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo,
> >> >> different angle in UPI's "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel
> >> >> ("Kennedy In Texas" video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges
> >>>> film; for the bucket still photo: http://www.primenet.com/~pamelam/jfk.html
> >> >> [inc. photo of rear seat of limo at White House Garage 11/22/63]
> >> >> http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/hospthp.jpg
> >> >
> >> > There are a couple pictures of the bucket by the rear left tire of
> >> >the limo. It is there for at least 2 pictures, but it isn`t there in
> >> >later picture. Likely it was moved because it was under foot when they
> >> >put the top on the limo.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could be... when you're finished washing the limo, you don't need the bucket
> >> anymore.
> >
> > Where precisely was the area being cleaned?
>
>
> What did the eyewitnesses say, Bud?
Well, MacNeil said the "backseat". Now, if you think that backseat
is clean, I`d hate to see your car.
> >> >> Vince Palamara :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> *************************************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how
> >> >> Mr. Harris is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that
> >> >> he's attempting to contradict.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's fun to watch you attempt to "explain away" each individual eyewitness,
> >> Bud... but you have to be far too dishonest with their statements.
> >
> > You only produced only one witness who claimed to see the cleaning
> >first-hand.
>
> Untrue.
Where do your other reports claim to be first hand?
> >He admitted his view wasn`t a good one.
>
> Untrue.
Ok, he said he moved forward to get a better one.
> >> Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth?
> >
> > Why not just admit that your only concern is latching onto crackpot
> >premises?
>
> What's "crackpot" about eyewitnesses who report what they saw?
Nothing. The conclusion you leap to from what they say is crackpot.
> Is it the fact
> that what they saw is inconvenient to you?
What they say they saw has no effect on my convience.
Bud
TOP POST
I was surfing around trying to find more information about this
"washing of the limo" issue. First I found this, which seemed to
support I wasn`t off base to claim that MacNeil could have been the
source for all the reports of limo washing...
From the Texas Observer, and article entitled "Dateline Dallas;
November 22, 1963 as seen from the Observer archives" by Ronnie
Drugger...
"Because I had reached Yarborough first before many reporters came
up, I then told a group of them what he had said from the start. This
was a common scene the rest of the day, reporters sharing what they had
learned with their colleagues."
Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
for me...
The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
"The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
So, it seems Sidey may have been a first hand witness to the limo
being cleaned after all (by the way, abbatoir means slaughterhouse, I
looked it up). This is the type of report I was looking for and not
seeing, an unequivocal and detailed account. If Sidey original report
read more like this one, I would have never have contested the washing
of the limo. Sidey`s report given here previously sounded too much like
MacNeil`s account, with it`s "A guard was set up around the Lincoln.."
In any case, I am convinced the limo was cleaned, although probably
not much. And, of course, the reason you believe it was cleaned
remains crackpot, Ben.
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
Sorry Bud, you've lost this one. Anyone can look at the photos and see quite
clearly that both the cameraman, and spectators, are quite close enough to be
able to describe *WHAT THEY DID INDEED DESCRIBE*.
You have no choice, Bud... you're going to have to call 'em liars.
>> >If he didn`t
>> >actualy observe them mopping up blood, then it`s just an assumption on
>> >his part, right?
>>
>>
>> It would be if he didn't *STATE* that this is exactly what he saw.
>
> He did. But was he in a position to actually see the SS mopping up
>blood? The position he indicates suggests he was not.
Nope. Do you really believe that everyone is an idiot?
>> "I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP
>> THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN..."
>
> Actually, it was the limo he was taken out of.
Does this change the meaning of the statement?
>And a curious use of the word "starting". What is the srart of such a
>process, getting a bucket of water?
Nope. Merely walking with a bucket of water, and setting it down next to the
limo, would *NOT* have prompted anyone to state *specifically* that the back
seat was being cleaned.
Again, you must think everyone else is an idiot... to propose such simplistic
and stupid suggestions.
>> >Is there any way he could have witnessed mopping up of
>> >blood in the backseat the way he describes his vantage point for the
>> >event?
>>
>>
>> Why not? Are you blind? Do you suppose MacNeil was blind?
>
> I can`t see the mess in the backseat in any of the picture taken at
>Parkland . Why would I think his vantage could see better, when he
>indicates it wasn`t?
You're going *nowhere* with this argument. Just admit that you believe he's a
liar.
>> >> Of course, photos showed a crowd of people that were probably no more
>> >> than 15-20 feet away, quite close enough to see what was seen and
>> >> reported... To say nothing of the photos, which I'm quite sure weren't
>> >> taken by the Secret Service or the DPD. And yet, they show quite a bit
>> >> of detail, don't they?
>> >
>> > Yah, they do,
>>
>>
>> Then your speculation that people could not have seen the cleaning of
>> the limo THAT THEY ASSERT THEY SAW is simply rubbish, isn't it?
>
> No, for the reason I just gave. The mess in the backseat can be see
>in the photo taken looking down into the limo. MacNeil indicates he
>never got close enough to do this.
Why do you bother, Bud?
>> >of the putting on of the roof. Nothing that can be
>> >clearly discerned as cleaning the limo.
>>
>> Nope. There was no *photo* of the limo being cleaned.
>
> I`m I wrong when I think you indicated that the one photo with the
>bucket in it was them cleaning the limo?
You're a liar, Bud. I defy you to *quote* any such statement by me.
>> What you have is eyewitness testimony and eyewitness statements,
>> corroborated by a photo of the bucket of water next to the limo.
>
> I won`t give an URL (because it likely wouldn`t work), but I`ll
>direct you to where I`m looking at these Parkland photos. It`s Robin
>Unger`s "JFK Assassination Image Galleries". There is 5 or 6 (one
>appears to be a duplicate)
>photos of the limo outside Parkland. It appears to me chronologically
>(judging by people, the trunk being open, the top being on, ect) that
>the bucket is not there when the roof putting on process starts, then
>it is there for two photos, then it is gone when the process is
>completed. Just a little aside.
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/jfk2.html
>> >To clean the backseat, one
>> >would need to either get in the back, or lean way over the door to
>> >reach into the back. Any pictures of anything like this?
>>
>>
>> Nope. No-one has stated that there were. Are you attempting to argue that
>> because there was no photo showing the limo being cleaned, that it wasn't???
>
> Not really, although it seems worth a photo if someone had a camera.
>I was just trying to get a handle on the mechanics of such cleaning. I
>see three ways to get to any backseat cleaning to consider. Getting in
>the backseat, leaning in, or opening a door. Getting in seems unlikey,
>you`d get covered in gore. Leaning in would make for a stretch, as the
>mess is located centrally. Opening the left door seems unlikey, as the
>puppet is propped against it on that side. Like I said, just thinking
>out loud what the mechanics of this process would entail, as no real
>details are given.
None of which is going to rebute the fact that *eyewitnesses* reported that the
limo was cleaned.
>> And if there *had* been a photo of someone leaning in with a white rag
>> in his hand - you'd suggest that he was merely removing a purse...
>
> I wouldn`t expect a rag used to mop up blood to be white, would you?
Oh? Is this like wine? White wine with fish, red wine with meat? White rag
for dust, dark rag for blood?
I wasn't aware of any such requirements.
>> Photos can be deceptive... but you can't get around the multiple,
>> independent, corroborating accounts of the eyewitnesses... not and be
>> honest, anyway...
>
> As if honesty is a consideration here. You don`t have multiple,
>independant,corroborating reports about the cleaning of the limo.'
Yep... Honesty *IS* the issue, as you've just illustrated.
>You have one that appears to be, and others that may or may not be.
>
>> >> What you are down to is arguing that an eyewitness could not have seen
>> >> what he described...
>> >
>> > Yah, it seems obvious that from his vantage point, he couldn`t see
>> >what he describes.
>>
>>
>> And black is white, water is dry, the sky is polka-dotted, and everyone
>> but you is a fool....
>
> Can you see the gore in the backseat in any pictures taken at
>Parkland other than ones that may have been taken by people right up to
>limo taken down in? Did MacNeil indicate he got right up to the limo?
No need to go any further, Bud. Eyewitnesses reported the limo was cleaned at
Parkland, and photos of a bucket corroborate what several witnesses report.
End of story.
Call them liars, or admit that the limo was washed at Parkland... it's really
just that simple.
>> When you are so desperate that you have to simply start calling eyewitnesses
>> liars - then it's clear that you've lost...
>
> It is only your limited imagination that makes "liar" the only
>option.
All of your other options aren't working, Bud. MacNeil *didn't* have a press
conference, there *WERE* other reporters there, and people *WERE* close enough
to be able to describe what they described.
>> >> Anyone who looks at these photos, and tries to believe *YOUR*
>> >> argument that someone standing close enough to take these pictures
>> >> could not have figured out that the limo was being washed, or was
>> >> *confused* into believing this was happening, is as much a kook as
>> >> you are.
>> >
>> > Of course, Ben, people always draw correct conclusions from the
>> >events they witnessed.
>>
>>
>> Multiple,
>
> Only one first hand account to the cleaning.
Liar.
>> independent,
>
> Because you determined there was no interaction between these people?
Prove that there was...
Are you now suggesting a "conspiracy" of newspaper and magazine reporters???
>> and corroborative.
>
> The others don`t corroborate MacNeil if he is the only source. The
>nurse, who says she didn`t order a bucket to be taken out,
No, she *DOESN'T* say that.
>does not say she saw any limo cleaning.
Nor has *anyone* suggested that she had.
None of this baloney is going to change the *fact* that these eyewitness
accounts corroborate each other.
>> It's rather amusing to see you stretching your arguments now...
>
> I am forced to expand on the points you have trouble grasping.
By lying about it? Isn't going to work, Bud.
The evidence is overwhelming.
I have more evidence that the limo was washed than you have that LHO brought a
rifle to work - indeed, that he even owned a rifle.
>> >> >It may have appeared
>> >> >they were cleaning the interior of the limo from a distance.
>> >>
>> >> Again... more speculation... how sad...
>> >>
>> >> And you have *NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER* for the curious lack of
>> >> eyewitness testimony asserting that policemen were merely washing
>> >> blood off their uniform, or whatever...
>> >
>> > Yes, that is a fact that out of all the events and conversations
>> >that may have occurred in that Parkland parking lot, much much than 1%
>> >was recorded. What did the policeman who was helping the nurse with the
>> >gurney hear the man who supposedly ask for a bucket of water say? Where
>> >is the testimony of the couple of hundred people milling around outside
>> >of Parkland. You`ve produced one actual witness who said he saw the
>> >cleaning,
>>
>> Untrue. Why lie about it, Bud?
>
> Show something from any witness other than MacNeil who claims to
>have been a first hand witness to the limo being cleaned.
None of them claimed that the sun was shining that day either... but I doubt if
the death of JFK caused the sun to stop shining...
>> >and he describes a scene in which he could not directly
>> >observe the cleaning.
>>
>>
>> Again, untrue. As anyone who looks at the photos can easily judge.
>> Desperate, aren't you?
>
> Not at all. In which photo can you point out the gore in the
>backseat?
http://www.jfklancer.com/LimoMarsh.html - bottom of this url. Note how clean
the *backrest* of the backseat is.
>That is the target of the cleaning you alledge, correct? That
>can`t be seen in the photo, correct?
>
>> >> >Another
>> >> >thing to consider is that it appears in the photos I`ve seen that the
>> >> >windows were rolled up to put the roof on. Could be they reached in and
>> >> >cleaned the gore off the buttons that operated the windows in order to
>> >> >roll them up to put the roof on.
>> >>
>> >> More silly speculation...
>> >
>> > Well, where is the minute by minutes reports of the activities of
>> >all people concerned. You have a very small amount of information, and
>> >you are claiming that it rock solid establishes something.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Bud, you lost this one. The evidence that the limo was washed at
>> Parkland is *OVERWHELMING*.
>
> Surely enough convince you, anyway.
As I've pointed out, far more than the evidence you can cite to prove many
important points of this case.
Points that *YOU* accept based on far less evidence.
Hypocrite and dishonest, aren't you?
>> This illustrates quite well why you are a LNT'er.
>>
>> And even better illustrates what it *takes* to be a LNT'er.
>
> And your willingness to latch onto this crackpot theory about
>cleaning the limo with the purpose of destroying evidence illustrates
>why you are a CT.
Why is accepting what multiple, independent, corroborated eyewitnesses state
becomes a "crackpot" theory?
Makes *YOU* the kook, doesn't it?
>> >> >Activity like this might appear that
>> >> >they were cleaning the back from a distance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Speculation piled on top of speculation...
>> >
>> > <snicker> And what is it when you conclude this was a willful
>> >attempt to destroy evidence?
>>
>>
>> The only reasonable explanation of the facts.
>
> Yes, that you consider this a reasonable answer illustartes better
>than anything I could say that you are truly a kook.
And yet, you're such a yellow dishonest coward that you can't *name* any other
explanation.
>> I note that you haven't provided *ANY* other explanation for the speed with
>> which this was done.
>
> I must have missed the timeline you presented of these events.
It's in the evidence and cites I quoted. Illiterate, aren't you?
>> >I`d say the possibilities I`m putting
>> >forth are only around a thousand times more reasonable than your
>> >crackpot speculation
>>
>> Oh? That the cops were washing their goggles, and a number of people
>> mistook that to think that the limo was being washed?
>>
>> That even the Secret Service was complaining that the limo had been washed -
>> when it was only goggles?
>>
>> Nah... perhaps I'm lampooning your silly theory unfairly.
>>
>> Go ahead, Bud: List your theory right here:
>>
>> Be sure to fit in *ALL* the eyewitness testimony - how they misunderstood
>> what they heard, how they misunderstood what they saw, and who was just
>> flat lying.
>
> The one report you gave said that the bucket of water by the limo
>"suggests" it was being cleaned. It does. Seeing people messing around
>the limo and seeing the bucket could lead them to believe the limo was
>being cleaned. That is one possibility.
Shot down by Shirley Randall's testimony... and the multiple, independent
eyewitnesses that *reported* that the limo was washed.
Batting zero...
>That the backseat was a mess
>would have been circulating around
>I would think, both inside and outside of the hospital. Who said what
>to who which led who to think what is not firmly established, we don`t
>have every conversation documented to determine exactly how people
>thought what they did. It only takes two assumptions by two people to
>possibly account for this whole event. The nurse`s assumption that the
>bucket request was for cleaning the limo,
No, it was *NOT* an assumption on her part. You are dishonestly characterizing
her statement.
Still batting zero...
>and MacNeil`s asumption
Nope... he *saw* what he reported...
Still batting Zero....
>that the activity he witnessed around the limo was cleaning. That this
>appears as some astronomically unlikely occurance,
Based on *what*???
Still batting zero...
>but that the SS
>cleaned the limo with the motivation to destroy evidence of the
>assassination illustrates only that you are a kook.
And yet, you can't name *any other possible motivation* that explains the
facts... dishonest and cowardly of you, isn't it?
You batted zero, Bud. But perhaps I was too harsh... would you care to run that
above explanation of yours over on the censored group, and have *them* score it?
Perhaps you can find some LNT'er types who are as dishonest as you are.
>> The number of improbabilities that you are forced to believe in simply
>> boggle the mind.
>
> Yet, that it seems likely that the SS knew of the assassination
>beforehand, or got orders immediately to clean the limo to destroy
>evidence is the most probable explaination to you?
Feel free to offer ANY other explanation that fits the known facts.
Of course, you're going to have to admit that the limo *was* cleaned...
>I think I`ll stick
>to my way of thinking, thank you very much, your thinking strikes me as
>nuts. And it doesn`t ocur to you that you are casting blame for a
>heinious crime on innocent men on the flimsiest of pretexts.
>
>> >> >> 2) 21 H 226---Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get
>> >> >> a bucket of water; he complied;
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, that there is a bucket of water there is apparent in the photo
>> >> >is apparent. Why it was requested is the question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not if you actually pay attention to the eyewitnesses, it isn't.
>> >>
>> >> You ignore and deny the mutually corroborating, independent, eyewitness
>> >> accounts to latch on to explanations THAT HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
>> >> TO SUPPORT IT WHATSOEVER!
>> >>
>> >> But don't let the facts get in the way of your speculating... carry on...
>> >
>> > Ok. But you are really only presenting one eyewitness to the
>> >supposed cleaning,
>>
>>
>> And you're a liar.
>>
>> Robert MacNeil
>
> Said he saw the cleaning first hand.
>
>> Hugh Sidey
>
> Didn`t specifically state he observed the cleaning first hand.
Didn't state otherwise. Sheer speculation on your part.
>> Don Gardner
>
> Didn`t specifically state he observed the cleaning first hand.
Didn't state otherwise. Sheer speculation on your part.
>> Jim Bishop (more accurately, the Secret Service agents he interviewed)
>
> Reported something that didn`t happen.
But the limo *WAS* cleaned. Liar, aren't you?
>> >and a nurse who remembers a request she didn`t fulfil.
>>
>>
>> Lied, did she?
>
> Do you have a problem with my characterization of her testimony?
Of course I do. You keep referring to her making "assumptions", and there is
nothing in her testimony that would support such an idea. You're going to have
to be honest, and call her a liar.
>> >> >There were
>> >> >motorcycle cops with blood on their goggles and faces, SS men possibly
>> >> >getting blood on their hands putting on the top, ect.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> And not *ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS* who describes what you are now speculating.
>> >>
>> >> Do you still think that lurkers might judge you to be honest?
>> >
>> > Why would you think a cop cleaning his goggles, or a SS man rinsing
>> >off his hands would appear in the record?
>>
>>
>> Because bringing a bucket of water outside next to the limo - where there
>> was a crowd of people watching,
>
> Yes, lets look through the testimony of the crowd. Oops...
You mean all those reporters I quoted? Not a single one of them mentioned what
you think happened.
So your speculation has *ZERO* evidence for it.
>> then proceeding to wash goggles or uniforms would have
>> been sufficiently *UNUSUAL* to have provoked comments.
>
> Excellent. If it happened you would have seen it written. Of course
>it may be written somewhere you haven`t read, or may not have been
>written anywhere yet still happened.
More speculation, eh, Bud?
Is this the best you can do? Speculate, as CT'ers provide photos and eyewitness
testimony?
>> Why do I have to point out the obvious, Bud?
>>
>>
>>
>> >(It never ceases to amaze me
>> >that Oz takes his rifle to work and shoots some people, and it somehow
>> >becomes relevant if a cop washes his hands at the hospital afterwards.
>>
>>
>> It is when you try to invent things that have no evidence for it in order to
>> argue against something that DOES have multiple, independent, corroborative
>> eyewitness testimony.
>>
>>
>> >It show what the micro-analyzation of this event has taken things to).
>>
>>
>> Get over it, Bud.
>>
>> The limo was washed.
>>
>>
>>>> >> 3) 21 H 217---Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone
>>>> >> to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but
>> >> >> was so nervous and excited she forgot about it;
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes , it would have been hectic.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet, someone thought to ask for a bucket of water within the first
>> >> minute or two. Must have been following a well thought out plan, eh?
>> >
>> > Reject my speculation as sad, yet you leap to this crackpot
>> >speculation,eh, Ben?
>>
>>
>> What's "crackpot" about pointing out the speed with which someone tried
>> to clean the evidence?
>
> Why are you so certain that Randall is accurately quoting what the
>man asked her?
Go ahead, Bud... you can say it. It's really simple. Just say that she lied.
>Did the cop helping her with the gurney corroborate what
>was said?
Nope. Neither did she mention the front left wheel that was squeaking and badly
in need of oil.
>MacNeil doen`t corroborate what was asked, because Randall
>says she was asked for personel to clean the limo,
She was asked to have someone clean the limo, MacNeil reports someone cleaning
the limo.
If you don't see the corroboration, it's merely another example of your
dishonesty, nothing more.
>not the means to
>clean the limo. Did orderlies clean the limo? If not, that is a
>discrepancy, not corroboration.
What discrepancy? Randall admits that she *DIDN'T* go out to clean the limo.
Face it, Bud... the limo was cleaned.
>> >A bucket of water is useless for cleaning the
>> >limo, unless the intent was to throw it across the trunk. A bucket of
>> >water is useful to rinse of ones hands, though.
>>
>>
>> Your first speculation that a "cleaning station" for cops was put outside
>> next to the limo - now you're trying out the idea that they were all
>> washing their hands...
>
> You think a bucket of water represents personel coming out of the
>hospital to clean the limo?
That *is* what the eyewitnesses report.
>You do know the difference between
>inanimate objects and people, right? I`m not sure precisely where the
>bucket of water request came from, or who made it, or for what purpose
>it was requested. Randall doesn`t say she was asked for a bucket of
>water, she was (according to her affidavit) asked to provide personel
>to clean the limo. This request was never followed up on, apparently.
>Was it the person who asked for the personel the same person who
>requested the bucket? Who knows? Could have been someone else, for some
>other purpose than the one expressed to Randall (if she got that
>purpose right).
>So you have an unknown request by an unknown person to an orderly for a
>bucket of water for an unknown purpose. After that, you have a witness
>from a poor vantage point claiming to see things that seem to be need
>to be observed from close up (to see down into the set area).
Limo was cleaned, Bud... it's just that simple.
>> You're going from silly to sillier...
>
> It`s a slippery slope.
>
>> >> >Possible the request was something
>> >> >like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with", or something
>> >> >like, and she just assumed it was the limo that was the target of the
>> >> >cleaning.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> Yep... simply *deny* what eyewitnesses state... even when it's independently
>> >> corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses...
>> >
>> > You have more than one first hand witness to the cleaning of the
>> >limo?
>>
>>
>> Yep... listed them, too.
>
> You do know that when a reporter reports an event, it doesn`t
>necesarily mean he witnessed the event first hand, don`t you?
Feel free to *cite* any evidence that they weren't there. You could start by
reading their article, and showing anything that supports your theory.
>> I can imagine that perhaps some reporters were getting their facts second
>> hand, but not all of them.
>
> Perhaps the problem lies with your imagination.
Facts getting you down, Bud?
>> It's in the testimony that the reporters were there.
>
> At the time of the supposed cleaning?
Yes. Try *reading* the cites... then you wouldn't be asking *stupid* questions.
>> You're going to have to prove that they didn't see what they reported, Bud.
>
> Not to point out that it isn`t proven the reporters witnesses these
>events first hand. I`ll accept MacNeil, the others are unestablished
>first hand witnesses as far as I can tell.
The sun *was* shining, Bud.
>> >> Speculate on other possibilities that have *NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER*
>> >> for them...
>> >
>> > Why would you expect to be able to firmly reconstruct events from
>> >only a few sentences from a few of the hundreds of witnesses in the
>> >Parkland parking lot?
>>
>>
>> I'm not "reconstructing", Bud.
>>
>> I'm merely listening when they say that the limo was washed.
>>
>> It's *YOU* that's trying to construct *any* other reason for that bucket.
>>
>> And failing miserably...
>
> Who requested the bucket? Who was asked for that bucket? Did the
>unknown person who asked the unknown person for the bucket say what it
>was for? There are gaps you gladly ignore, or fill in to suit.
I don't need to call the eyewitnesses liars... you do.
>> >> The improbabilities you have to believe boggle the mind...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> 4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was
>> >> >> set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and
>> >> >> tried to wash the blood from the car.";
>> >> >
>> >> > Note the date.
>> >>
>> >> Yep... magazines generally *do* have a lead time.
>>
>>
>> What, no comment? Did you simply forget that magazines aren't published
>> with the speed of newspapers?
>
> Is it your opinion that the 29th issue was the first Time Magazine
>with mention of the assassination?
Silly... even *you* should be able to figure the logical fallacy here.
>> >> >This could be just second-hand information from
>> >> >MacNeil.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Who's book was published in 1988. I rather doubt if the book was the
>> >> source. So do you suppose that MacNeil was holding a press conference
>> >> there at Parkland? Telling everyone else who was there what they were
>> >> seeing?
>> >
>> > I`m sure MacNeil never breathed a word to anyone about what he
>> >thought he saw until he put it in his book. The point is, you don`t
>> >know whether these other news reports are based on MacNeil`s
>> >observaions or first hand observations of the other reporters.
>>
>>
>> What I *know* is what the eyewitnesses stated.
>
> And I know a few of your sources didn`t state to seeing the limo
>cleaned first hand.
Nor did they state that the sun was shining.
>> It's *YOU* that has to call them all liars...
>
> I wouldn`t dream of calling people liars with only incomplete and
>sketchy information at my disposal. What kind of idiot would do that?
Oh, but you *DO*. You stop short of being honest, but you refuse to accept what
they clearly stated.
>> >> You *do* know that there were reporters there, right? You *do* know
>> >> that there were more than just one or two, right?
>> >
>> > I just don`t know if the reporters who wrote these other reports of
>> >the limo cleaning were there. Do you?
>>
>>
>> Nah... the ones who where there didn't write anything... only reporters who
>> *weren't* there reported on what they didn't see.
>
> Good point. How many reporters flocked to Parkland. How many
>reporters say they say limo cleaning first hand? One is all I am aware
>of...
All of them, as far as you have contrary proof of.
>> The *stupidities* that you are forced to believe in order to be a LNT'er
>> simply boggle the mind.
>
> Apparently you have the kind of mind that boggles easily.
>
>> Do you enjoy the attention, Bud? Or are you simply monumentally stupid?
>
> I can tell assumptions when I see them.
>
>> >> >Who knows if Hugh Sidney was in the parking lot of Parkland at
>> >> >the time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When speculation is your best argument, and denying what eyewitnesses
>> >> assert is your only defense... what can anyone say?
>> >
>> > Does Hugh Sidney, anywhere in his report, claim to have been an
>> >eyewitness to the events at Parkland?
>>
>>
>> Claiming he lied, Bud?
>
> Illiterate, aren`t you? If he never said he saw the limo cleaning
>first hand, I can`t call the claim a lie.
He never stated that the sun was shining either. But the photographs prove that
it was.
>>>> >> 5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner: "Outside the hospital, blood had
>> >> >> to be wiped from the limousine";
>> >> >
>> >> > Again, the source for this could be MacNeil. A hundred mentions
>> >> >based on the same observation could still only be one observation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> More speculation...
>> >
>> > Yah, it is merely speculation that they weren`t all based on
>> >MacNeil`s observations.
>>
>>
>> From his 1988 book? Or from his press conference?
>
> If I had transcripts of everything MacNeil said to everyone he
>talked to, I could probably tell you better.
LOL!!!
>> It's not "speculation" to believe that when a reporter describes a scene,
>> that he was there reporting...
>
> Doesn`t need to have actually witnessed an event first hand to
>report it.
Where are all the reports of newspaper reporters that *WERE* there, according to
sworn testimony?
Feel free to quote any of them who were there, and stated that the bucket of
water was for goggle washing...
>> >> When you have to imagine that Parkland didn't have any reporters covering
>> >> this story, despite eyewitness testimony - you illustrate the dishonesty
>> >> that you must sink to in order to avoid the obvious.
>> >
>> > Can you tell reporting from first hand observation from reports
>> >compiled from sources?
>>
>> Speculating again? Based on *what* evidence do you assign *any* of the news
>> stories to second hand?
>
> Haven`t. Only pointed out that they aren`t established as first
>hand, except for MacNeil.
Speculation... when that's all you have, you don't have anything, do you?
>> >MacNeil`s report is obviously first hand. The
>> >other report may or may not be. Of course you are free to assume they
>> >are based on first hand observation, and I`ll point out that this is
>> >only supposition.
>>
>>
>> When speculation is your only resource, you're getting desperate.
>
> It is an assumption that the other newsmen other than MacNeil
>witnessed limo cleaning first hand. Until you can establish this
>assumption as fact, it remains an assumption.
Limo was cleaned, that's *not* a speculation.
>> >> >> 6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker: "...the
>> >> >> police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water
>>>> >> stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.";
>> >> >
>> >> > "suggesting"?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yep... quite clearly Tom Wicker didn't get there soon enough to see
>> >> the washing of the limo.
>> >
>> > Then why was he included in a list of people who support that the
>> >limo was cleaned. To beef it up so it appears more substantial? That
>> >there was a bucket of water near the limo is documented by photos. In
>> >fact, it`s position near the limo might be what led to some of the
>> >reports that the limo was cleaned. But, it
>> >is in a terrible spot for cleaning the backseat of pools of blood,
>> >wouldn`t you agree. They use whatever iten they are using for the
>> >mopping, then transport the blood soaked item several feet to the rear
>> >of the car to rinse it off. Wouldn`y blood and gore drip down the
>> >fronts of their nice suits? If the bucket was used for the purpose you
>> >describe, wouldn`t it be more efficient to have the bucket closer to
>> >the action?
>>
>>
>> Getting more desperate by the minute, Bud. Perhaps you should call on
>> Robert Harris to help you...
>
> This discussion has it`s quota of kooks, Ben. You represent fine.
Of course... I rely on the evidence.
But you need some help from those who don't rely on the evidence. Robert Harris
is a known quantity on this issue... you should seek help.
>> >> It *did* happen within just minutes of the arrival, if you've been
>> >> paying attention to the eyewitness testimony.
>> >
>> > Is the time fixed for this event?
>>
>>Yep... I've quoted the testimony, if you take the time, you can learn the rest
>> of it. Try volume 18, starting around page 731...
>
> The bucket of water was brought out when? The request for it was
>made when?
It's in the cites I gave. Read 'em.
>> >I see a request for water that
>> >was not acted on within minutes of the arrival, is all. When was the
>> >water actually brought out?
>>
>>I'll leave this to you as a rather simply exercise in research. You should be
>> able to narrow it down quite well if you pay attention.
>
> Yah, my bad, the request to the nurse was said to be for personel to
>clean the limo, not water.
Still haven't read the basic cites I gave, I see...
Unfortunately for your dishonest theory here, eyewitnesses reported otherwise.
>> >> Don't mind that not ONE SINGLE EYEWITNESS described any policemen
>> >> washing off blood from *their* uniform from that bucket... and
>> >> completely ignore the simple solution of walking into the hospital
>> >> that surely had restrooms...
>> >
>> > Doubt the SS wanted a lot of people, even police, going in and out.
>>
>>
>> These WERE the SS, Bud. As for motorcycle cops that were bloody, how
>> many do you imagine that there were?
>
> Three shown escorting the limo to Parkland right after the
>assasination. Two shown in the pictures outside Parkland.
Good! You can do simple math. Now put two and two together...
>> >> Yet this is the sort of speculation that LNT'ers have to imagine to
>> >> get around the obvious...
>> >
>> > It`s pretty obvious that a bucket of water was pretty useless by
>> >itself to clean the limo.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. The eyewitnesses asserted that this was EXACTLY what was used.
>
> The only way to clean the backseat of a car with a bucket of water
>only is to throw the water across the backseat. Is that what you think
>happened?
When you need to lie to make a point, you need to revise your point.
>> >Was the SS using their ties to mop up the blood?
>>
>>
>> No, they were using the 5x7 white rag with a "P" engraved in the corner.
>
> If the orderly didn`t bring rags, then the the SS men would use
>thier hankies, is that it?
Why would an SS agent be carrying a "P"arkland rag?
>Did they use mops to mop up the blood? Did
>the bring sponges, in anticipation of needing to destroy this evidence?
What did the eyewitnesses state?
>> >> >> 7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]:
>> >> >> "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had
>> >> >> sponged it [the limousine] out.";
>> >> >
>> >> > Who cleaned out the backseat, the SS agents or the orderlies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As is clear, the Secret Service... but you have to pay attention.
>> >
>> > So, a bogus report was included to prop up the idea the limo was
>> >cleaned.
>>
>>
>> What "bogus" report?
>
> You like "untrue" better. If Bishops says orderlies did something
>that orderlies didn`t do, then what do you call it?
LOL!!!
It wasn't a "report"... it was an interview that Bishop had with SS agents.
Although the SS had an *EXCELLENT* motive to ascribe the washing of the limo to
others, they *DID* state that the limo had been washed.
Case closed.
>>>>The Secret Service could hardly complain to Jim Bishop that they regretted
>>their
>>>> destruction of evidence... The blame had to be placed elsewhere. Maybe in
>> >> LNT'er world those who commit criminal acts brag about them to authors...
>> >
>> > What is the word for this type of crackpot musing? Oh, right,
>> >"speculation".
>>
>>
>> The sheer stupidity that you exhibit is rather funny, Bud! Keep it up!
>
> And you keep on displaying those crackpot assumptions.
And yet, you are too cowardly and dishonest to provide *any* other explanation
that fits the known facts.
>> This is really quite simple... the SS washed the limo.
>
> Possibly, but hardly positively established. Not with only one sure
>first hand account.
The Secret Service states that it was washed. Although a second hand report, it
*is* corroborated by a number of other eyewitnesses.
Case closed... you lose.
>> This is a crime.
>
> Crackpots on newsgroups are a poor choice to determine when crimes
>are committed. Pools of blood in a backseat don`t necessarily tell
>anything about the crime. It is unestablished that the FBI had the
>science to determine much from the blood splatter on an untopped,
>moving car in 1963, or even if they could tell much from it today.
First discussed in 1939, it was rather famously used in the 1955 Sheppard case.
But don't let facts get in the way of your crackpot theories...
>Wind, air displacement from the car, ect, would all act to make any
>findings dificult. Did the FBI even attempt to discern anything from
>the pattern of the blood in the backseat?
They couldn't... the evidence had been washed...
>If the evidence isn`t even
>analyzed using this science, what good is preserving it?
First you have to prove that it *was* preserved. Eyewitnesses state otherwise.
>> They
>> aren't going to admit it.
>
> Who are *they*, specifically? Does Bishop supply an identity to
>*they*?
Read the book.
>> >> And yet, it's quite clear that Jim Bishop was getting the information
>> >> that the limo *HAD* been cleaned. And was getting this information
>>>> from one of the very few sources that would know the truth beyond any doubt.
>> >
>> > There you go with the assumptions. He doesn`t say where he got the
>> >concept that the SS was sorry that orderlies cleaned the limo from.
>>
>>
>> Why, he got it from the janitor at the Trade Mart, of course!
>
> It may have been, as the source wasn`t named. You may not be aware
>of this, but all it would take is someone claiming to have heard an SS
>man claiming regret at allowing orderlies to clean the limo for it to
>find it`s way into a crackpot conspiracy book. That why the source
>needs to be specifically named, so it can be considered. Of course, a
>crackpot might assume the source was the SS.
Speculations again, eh, Bud?
>> You're going to have to do better than this, Bud. Stupidity piled upon
>> stupidity isn't going to impress any lurkers...
>
> Fuck them lurkers. Likely most are conspiracy kooks here anyway.
>
>> >You only assume the source was the SS (as if the "SS" was one person, with
>> >one mouth).
>>
>>
>> No, it was the janitor... How stupid *are* you?
>
> Smart enough to know you are ducking the issue. If Bishop named the
>source in a footnote, or in the bibliography, what was it? If he didn`t
>name the source, a janitor is as good a guess as any as to what it was.
He *did* name the source. Feel free to read the quote again.
>> >> But this is simple... don't you bother to *think* about something before
>> >> commenting?
>> >>
>> >> I guess you'll just have to call the Secret Service liars...
>> >
>> > Your lack of imagination is staggering. Is that the only option you
>> >see? Was this spokesman for the SS that expressed regret for orderlies
>> >cleaning the limo even at Parkland? Perhaps you should establish the
>> >basics taking leaps off this information. Like, who was the source, and
>> >were they at Parkland?
>>
>>
>> It was the janitor at the Trade Mart. Tell us, Bud, just how many liars are
>> there in this listing of eyewitnesses to the cleaning of the limo?
>
> Bishop relates information you don`t think happened (orderlies
>cleaning the limo),
*Proveably* didn't happen, you mean.
>and doesn`t say what his source for this
>information is.
And you're a liar.
>I am only pointing out what should be obvious to you.
>
>> Shall we compare the number to the number of eyewitnesses that state
>> that LHO had a rifle?
>
> That was established with other evidence. Like photos.
Like the photos of the bucket?
Again, I challenge you to compare the number of eyewitnesses.
You'll lose.
>> If people judged eyewitnesses the way *YOU* do, there is no case
>> against LHO at all.
>
> Just establish the basics before jumping to extraordinary
>explainations. For instance, who specifically asked for a bucket of
>water? Surely you can`t be trying to advance such an extraordinary
>premise without this very basic, yet very key information, are you?
Why? Does the lack of knowledge of the specific SS agent that asked Shirley
Randall to get someone to clean the limo mean that the eyewitnesses who
*watched* a SS agent cleaning the limo were liars?
The stupidities that LNT'ers are forced to believe in simply boggle the mind.
>Once we have a specic person establish, then we can examine that
>individual for possible motivations for asking for the water, but let`s
>not get ahead of ourselves.
The limo was washed, Bud. Face the facts.
>> In fact, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that JFK isn't still the
>> President...
>
> I`d have a hard time convincing some kooks that Bush is.
I note that you've not compared eyewitness numbers, as I asked you to. Coward,
aren't you?
>> >> You see... I *know* they lied about *who* cleaned the limo... but *YOU*
>> >> have to imagine that they lied and created the whole story ... and it
>> >> just happened to be corroborated by eyewitnesses.
>> >
>> > I see it as a report that contains information that didn`t happen.
>> >Only CT could think that a bogus report supports their premise.
>>
>>
>> Stupidity doesn't just rain... it pours...
>
> You supplied a source you didn`t think happened to support your
>premise. I only pointed that out.
It *DOES* support the fact that the limo was washed.
>> >> Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >You have reports of both here, were they cleaning in tandum?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, there are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning the
>> >> limo. Why do you need to lie about the evidence, Bud?
>> >
>> > You produced reports of both events happening.
>>
>>
>>
>> No. There are *NO* eyewitness reports of hospital orderlies cleaning
>> the limo.
>
> Then we can disregard Bishop on the matter. Yet, you cite from his
>book.
Dense, aren't you?
>> I can repeat it another dozen times if you're too illiterate to read it the
>> second time...
>
> Yah, you think a bogus report of hopsital workers cleaning the limo
>says something. It does, that someone made a supposition based on
>partial information. Maybe it was based on the observation of the
>orderly carrying the bucket, and expanded upon.
The Secret Service most assuredly was in the best possible position to know if
the limo was washed... and according to Jim Bishop, they said it *WAS*.
Can't get around the facts, Bud.
>> >If you thought the
>> >information in this source was bogus, you shouldn`t have included it.
>>
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> I wasn`t the one who included a source I didn`t believe was accurate
>to support a premise.
It *DOES* support the facts.
>> If eyewitnesses don't report the same identical thing, even though they have
>> different motivations - simply disregard 'em all.
>
> <snicker> There is no way SS men are going to be confused with
>hospital orderlies, or vice versa. So, one source or the other was
>wrong, likely from make poor assumptions from information. That should
>be familar enough to you.
This isn't difficult, Bud. *ALL* the eyewitnesses that commented describe a
Secret Service man.
The Secret Service *admits* that the limo was washed, and merely deny by
implication that they were the ones who did it.
>> But this is the way LNT'ers *have* to treat the eyewitness testimony.
>
> What was the name of the eyewitness Bishop was citing?
What material fact will that piece of information change?
>> >> What you have is a self-serving declaration by the Secret Service, who
>> >> had to blame it on *someone* else.
>> >
>> > That is how a crackpot might choose to view it, yes.
>>
>>
>> Nah... I'll agree with you. THE LIMO WAS WASHED... but it was hospital
>> orderlies that did it.
>
> Bastards. They killed Kennedy, all kooks satisfied, lets call it a
>day.
>
>> But I know you'll be a hypocrite, and refuse to believe this as well...
>
> You don`t believe hopital personel cleaned the limo, right? Neither
>do I. Only I would cite that information I didn`t believe from a book.
>Now, who is the hypocrite? Who is using false information to advance
>their premise?
But I'm *not*. Only your sheer stupidity and dishonesty allows you to state so.
>> >> There are *NO* eyewitnesses who stated that anyone
>> >> other than the Secret Service was cleaning the limo.
>> >
>> > Then it was shoddy work for Jim Bishop to include it in his book,
>> >wasn`t it?
>>
>>
>> Illiterate, aren't you?
>
> You don`t think it was poor research on Bishop`s part to include
>such an obvious falsehood in his book?
What poor research? It was widely reported that the limo was washed. Even the
SS admitted it.
>> >> It *was*, clearly, the original plan... they *asked* Shirley Randall
>> >> to do it... but their plan got fouled up when she forgot...
>> >
>> > Yah, Ben knows what *they* are thinking, the sure sign of a
>> >crackpot. Lets look at another possibility, pure speculation mind you,
>> >but one more fixed in the real world instead of indulging in wild
>> >flights of fantasy. "A man" asks nurse Shirley Randall for a bucket of
>> >water (but not rags, the other necessary item for car cleaning). It is
>> >worded something like "Can we get a bucket of water to clean up with?"
>>
>>
>> Ah, but this is *NOT* what the Secret Service actually asked Randall.
>> Calling her a liar, aren't you?
>
> Yah, my bad, "the man" (who`s identity is unestablished) asked for
>personel to clean the car, according to her.
Which makes your argument nonsense...
>> >Now, she sees the black shiny cars, and possibly the gore covered
>> >backseat of the limo,
>>
>>
>> Oh? Can you cite for this?
>
> She says she saw the black shiny cars when she went outside, and
>that is when it sunk in who might have been shot. It is possible she
>saw the backseat, as the limo was parked right in front of the door she
>said she came out of. Are you saying this is impossible? You have this
>"everything that appears in the record is true, and nothing that
>doesn`t appear in the record could have happened" attitute.
I'm not interested in your speculations. I note that you didn't cite for your
speculation.
>> >and assumes the cleaning needed in the mess in
>> >the limo.
>>
>> She didn't *need* to assume. She reported what she was asked.
>
> Verbatum? What were the exact words the man said? Is this what the
>cop who was with her said that the man had said.
Go ahead, Bud... label Randall a liar. That's your only choice.
She was far too specific for you to do otherwise.
>> You have to lie
>> about it in order to argue against it.
>
> I only need to accurately chracterize what you present to argue
>against what you present. Call assumptions "assumptions" and so forth.
Only you, Bud, have been speculating. I've given *one* speculation - the reason
for the SS implied denial that they had washed the limo... you've given dozens.
>> >She doesn`t forget, she tells an orderly that they want a
>> >bucket outside to clean the mess in the limo, and then forgets that she
>> >relayed the request.
>>
>> A purely imagined scenario, with *NO* evidence.
>
> Then since we have no record of a bucket being requested, we must
>assume no bucket was requested, right?
When you have to lie to make a point, it's not much of a point.
>> >The orderly gets the bucket of water, and when
>> >carrying it out, a reporter, hungry for any tidbit of information he
>> >could get, asks what it is for. Orderly replies that the men asked for
>> >it to clean the car. Reporter reports limo cleaning.
>>
>>
>> And the reporter needs to ask about the bucket of water when he is
>> *SEEING* the limo being washed...
>
> Unless the reporter was inside at the time. This cleaning supposedly
>happened early, right? Maybe before all reporters were ejected from
>hospital? Sees orderly with bucket, asks what it is for? Or maybe the
>reporter got the information of the orderly carrying the bucket out
>from the orderly who brought the bucket out by questioning him later
>on, or from someone who was in the hopspital who saw the bucket being
>carried by the orderly. All variety of possibilies with huge chasms of
>information missing. If we had minutely detailed accounts from all
>parties, we could possibly reconstruct these things precisely.
More speculations... why not be honest, and just call 'em all liars, Bud?
The eyewitnesses *stated* that the limo had been washed. They *saw* it being
washed. Nothing you can do will change those facts.
>> >> >Does anyone
>> >> >else note hospital workers crawing around the limo cleaning it out?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The answer, for any lurkers who took the time to read the quotes
>> >> provided, is clearly "no". But don't let the facts disturb your spin,
>> >> Bud...
>> >
>> > Who included this report of orderlies cleaning the limo? Wasn`t me.
>>
>>
>> But most people are capable of drawing the right conclusions.
>
> From erroneous information? I`m sure CT will be able to.
What was "erroneous" about it? The limo *was* washed.
Your logic has proven LHO innocent... after all, he didn't *admit* that he
committed a crime. Neither did the SS.
Nice of you to admit that what the eyewitnesses saw actually happened.
When you have to lie....
>Are you going to present
>photos where no limo cleaning is shown as evidence of limo cleaning?
>The other bits have been addressed.
Yep... you've finally admitted that the limo was cleaned...
No, you DIDN'T look again. For if you *had* looked on page 36, you'd see what
is *CLEARLY* a motorcyle cop assisting.
Liar, aren't you?
Actually, I've cited the photos that *do* show the *back* of the backseat to be
remarkably clean compared to the bottom of the seat.
But you won't be honest enough to admit it.
>> >> >> Vince Palamara :-)
>> >> >>
>>>> >> *************************************************************************
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm having fun digging this hole deeper and deeper, and wondering how
>> >> >> Mr. Harris is going to climb out from this mountain of evidence that
>> >> >> he's attempting to contradict.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>> It's fun to watch you attempt to "explain away" each individual eyewitness,
>> >> Bud... but you have to be far too dishonest with their statements.
>> >
>> > You only produced only one witness who claimed to see the cleaning
>> >first-hand.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
> Where do your other reports claim to be first hand?
Where do the other reporters claim to be other than first hand?
>> >He admitted his view wasn`t a good one.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
> Ok, he said he moved forward to get a better one.
>
>> >> Why not just admit that you aren't interested in the truth?
>> >
>> > Why not just admit that your only concern is latching onto crackpot
>> >premises?
>>
>> What's "crackpot" about eyewitnesses who report what they saw?
>
> Nothing. The conclusion you leap to from what they say is crackpot.
And yet, you're *still* too yellow to provide any alternative explanation that
fits the facts.
Ben Holmes
>
>
> TOP POST
>
> I was surfing around trying to find more information about this
>"washing of the limo" issue. First I found this, which seemed to
>support I wasn`t off base to claim that MacNeil could have been the
>source for all the reports of limo washing...
>
> From the Texas Observer, and article entitled "Dateline Dallas;
>November 22, 1963 as seen from the Observer archives" by Ronnie
>Drugger...
>
> "Because I had reached Yarborough first before many reporters came
>up, I then told a group of them what he had said from the start. This
>was a common scene the rest of the day, reporters sharing what they had
>learned with their colleagues."
And yet, you haven't shown a *SINGLE* account that you claim might be second
hand as actually *being* second hand.
Still speculating, and still dishonest...
> Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
>for me...
>
> The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
>
> "The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
>pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
>that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
>sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
>the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
>certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
>milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
>allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
> I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
Where did he get the sponge, Bud? There's no eyewitness accounting of a sponge,
how can you clean the limo with just a bucket of water???
> So, it seems Sidey may have been a first hand witness to the limo
>being cleaned after all (by the way, abbatoir means slaughterhouse, I
>looked it up). This is the type of report I was looking for and not
>seeing, an unequivocal and detailed account.
Such as MacNeil and Shirley Randall's??? Both of whom are detailed,
unequivocal, and *CORROBORATED BY OTHERS*.
And both whom you labeled as 'making assumptions'.
>If Sidey original report read more like this one, I would have never have
>contested the washing of the limo.
Let's imagine that Sidey's account doesn't exist at all then.
You're in the position of *REQUIRING* Jim Bishop to be a liar - since *HE*
states that the Secret Service said that the limo had been washed.
You must call Shirley Randall a liar - she reports that someone *ASKED* her to
have someone clean the limo.
You must call MacNeil a misguided liar as well.
There *isn't* any other position for you to take, and still remain honest, Bud.
Yet you refused to do so.
Sidey's account by itself is fairly similar to MacNeil's, that you dismissed as
making faulty assumptions...
>Sidey`s report given here previously sounded too much like
>MacNeil`s account, with it`s "A guard was set up around the Lincoln.."
> In any case, I am convinced the limo was cleaned, although probably
>not much.
You don't *know*??? Quite clearly, you *still* haven't read the citations I
gave, or viewed the photos I gave you the URL for.
>And, of course, the reason you believe it was cleaned
>remains crackpot, Ben.
>
> <SNIP>
Within just minutes, (and I really *am* referring to just one or two minutes) of
the limo's arrival at Parkland, someone in the Secret Service was already
attempting to get the limo *WASHED*. JFK probably had not even arrived in the
room where he died when the attempt was being made to get someone to wash the
limo.
The rather crazy speed at which this happened is illustrated by the speed with
which someone *else* (Richards) was co-opted. Happening right after Connally
had been wheeled into *his* room, Richards is gotten into the act by some
unknown SS agent.
The first responsibility of the SS was to secure the immediate environment...
yet *SOMEONE* wasn't thinking about this normal responsibility, but was looking
*back* at the limo.
There's absolutely *NO* reason - there isn't a sane person in the western world
that thought that this limo was going to be used later in the day...
So why the incredible urgency? Eh, Bud??
The *ONLY* conceivable reason is the destruction of evidence.
The Secret Service denied, by implication, that they had been responsible for
the washing of the limo - they knew, as any intelligent person knows, that this
was the destruction of evidence.
I gave you proof that blood spatter analysis had long been known, and had even
been rather heavily in the news just 8 years previous.
Bud, you can spout off all you want, but until you can provide ANY OTHER REASON
UNDER THE SUN that accounts for the facts as we know them, you're just blowing
smoke - and everyone knows it.
It's clear that *YOU* are the kook on this issue...
You've been in denial until it's plain even to you that you simply cannot
continue looking stupid... Robert Harris dropped out for the same reason... he
didn't want to admit that the limo was cleaned either - but the evidence is
simply overwhelming.
Now you label the only possible reason as "crackpot", even though you have
*NOTHING* to offer in it's place.
You're a coward, Bud, but more importantly, you're dishonest.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1126402127.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> > TOP POST
> >
> > I was surfing around trying to find more information about this
> >"washing of the limo" issue. First I found this, which seemed to
> >support I wasn`t off base to claim that MacNeil could have been the
> >source for all the reports of limo washing...
> >
> > From the Texas Observer, and article entitled "Dateline Dallas;
> >November 22, 1963 as seen from the Observer archives" by Ronnie
> >Drugger...
> >
> > "Because I had reached Yarborough first before many reporters came
> >up, I then told a group of them what he had said from the start. This
> >was a common scene the rest of the day, reporters sharing what they had
> >learned with their colleagues."
>
>
> And yet, you haven't shown a *SINGLE* account that you claim might be second
> hand as actually *being* second hand.
No, what I did was prove what you asked me to prove, that reporters
where filling other reporters in with details of events they hadn`t
actually witnessed themselves. Remember you saying the "MacNeil press
cofference"? This reporter claims the sharing of information was "a
common scene". Is he lying?
> Still speculating, and still dishonest...
>
>
> > Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
> >for me...
> >
> > The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
> >
> > "The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
> >pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
> >that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
> >sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
> >the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
> >certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
> >milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
> >allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
> > I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
>
>
> Where did he get the sponge, Bud? There's no eyewitness accounting of a sponge,
> how can you clean the limo with just a bucket of water???
That is just the kind of detail I found conspicuously lacking. Had
it been included, it would have been one less red flag to me. In my
searching around for details on these events, I actually became more
and more convinced that the limo wasn`t cleaned. First, I kept finding
interviews with Sen. Yarlbourough in front of the emergency entrance,
which is right in front of the limo. How was he interviewed so much,
and there be so few reports of limo cleaning I was wondering. Then I
found a fuller version of Sidey`s original Time magazine article, which
read "A guard was set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a
pail of water and tried to wash the blood from the car. They left the
sprays of red roses and arters that Jackie and Nellie had been given at
the airport lying forlorn on the floor." That made me think that I
hadn`t seen any flowers on the floor in the backseat, where he is
describing the cleaning being done. In this account I just produced,
which I think was an anniversary of the asassination thingy, he clears
up where the flowers were. Perhaps someone asked him about this, and he
decided to take this opportunity to clear it up, my search showed he
does a lot of talks to universities and such where it could have been
asked about.
> > So, it seems Sidey may have been a first hand witness to the limo
> >being cleaned after all (by the way, abbatoir means slaughterhouse, I
> >looked it up). This is the type of report I was looking for and not
> >seeing, an unequivocal and detailed account.
>
>
> Such as MacNeil and Shirley Randall's??? Both of whom are detailed,
No, they really aren`t detailed.MacNeil`s sure isn`t. This report by
Sidey sure is. Had it been offered, I wouldn`t have questioned that the
limo was cleaned.
> unequivocal, and *CORROBORATED BY OTHERS*.
Who said they heard the man ask for personel to clean the limo other
than Randall?
> And both whom you labeled as 'making assumptions'.
I raised it as a possibility that they may have been making
assumptions.
> >If Sidey original report read more like this one, I would have never have
> >contested the washing of the limo.
>
>
> Let's imagine that Sidey's account doesn't exist at all then.
>
> You're in the position of *REQUIRING* Jim Bishop to be a liar - since *HE*
> states that the Secret Service said that the limo had been washed.
No, he says orderlies cleaned it. If it becomes obvious orderlies
didn`t clean it, the worth of what he relates diminishes. Did he follow
up and talk to hopsital personel to determine who these orderlies were?
It`s sloppy for him not to, sloppy to include this unverified report in
his book, and sloppy for him to not name the source he was getting the
information from. All that from one sentence, I can`t wait to read the
book.
> You must call Shirley Randall a liar - she reports that someone *ASKED* her to
> have someone clean the limo.
You must remain an idiot to think I need to call these people liars,
Ben. Surfing around looking into this, I saw two distinctly different
accounts of how the two wounded men were taken from the limo. In one
account, a nurse testified that it was necessary due to the
configuration of the car to remove Connaly first. In Nellie Connaly`s
account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
is lying.
> You must call MacNeil a misguided liar as well.
Is that what I did? Or did I raise the possibilty he may have made a
faulty assumption?
> There *isn't* any other position for you to take, and still remain honest, Bud.
Of course there is Ben. These "either-or" constructs only illustrate
your lack of imagination.
> Yet you refused to do so.
>
> Sidey's account by itself is fairly similar to MacNeil's, that you dismissed as
> making faulty assumptions...
Which account by Sidey, his Nov 29th one, or the one I produced?
> >Sidey`s report given here previously sounded too much like
> >MacNeil`s account, with it`s "A guard was set up around the Lincoln.."
> > In any case, I am convinced the limo was cleaned, although probably
> >not much.
>
> You don't *know*??? Quite clearly, you *still* haven't read the citations I
> gave, or viewed the photos I gave you the URL for.
You directed me to page 39, I believe. No idea what book. I was
working off the photos from the source I gave. When I said I went back
and checked, I meant back to that source.
> >And, of course, the reason you believe it was cleaned
> >remains crackpot, Ben.
> >
> > <SNIP>
>
> Within just minutes, (and I really *am* referring to just one or two minutes) of
> the limo's arrival at Parkland, someone in the Secret Service was already
> attempting to get the limo *WASHED*. JFK probably had not even arrived in the
> room where he died when the attempt was being made to get someone to wash the
> limo.
>
> The rather crazy speed at which this happened is illustrated by the speed with
> which someone *else* (Richards) was co-opted. Happening right after Connally
> had been wheeled into *his* room, Richards is gotten into the act by some
> unknown SS agent.
>
> The first responsibility of the SS was to secure the immediate environment...
> yet *SOMEONE* wasn't thinking about this normal responsibility, but was looking
> *back* at the limo.
>
> There's absolutely *NO* reason - there isn't a sane person in the western world
> that thought that this limo was going to be used later in the day...
>
> So why the incredible urgency? Eh, Bud??
>
> The *ONLY* conceivable reason is the destruction of evidence.
Of course this is all conjecture. More "this must mean this". It is
what is to be expected when someone trys to assign motivations through
actions. It`s like watching a ball game, and if the coach of one team
does something monumentally stupid, concluding from that the coach was
trying to throw the game (like that coach that won the toss in that
football game, and decided to allow the other team poccession. Does
this prove he was paid off?). In any case you have no testimony from a
single person regarding the motivations behind the cleaning of the
limo, you just feel free to assign one. Did they give this young SS
agent directions on exactly what needed to be destroyed, what parts
were important, or did the evil minions just assume he`d get it right?
Did the FBI ever run any tests concerning the blood splatters and
patterns? What could it have told them if they had? You haven`t shown
that any of this evidence you contend was being destroyed had any
meaningful use as evidence.
> The Secret Service denied, by implication, that they had been responsible for
> the washing of the limo - they knew, as any intelligent person knows, that this
> was the destruction of evidence.
Was Jackie destroying evidence when she was scooping up handfuls of
JFK`s brain?
> I gave you proof that blood spatter analysis had long been known, and had even
> been rather heavily in the news just 8 years previous.
What, the MacDonald case? A stabbing case indoors is way different
than a gunshot in a moving open car. What are the wind currects
produced by air flowing into a big open car like the limo? We might
know the prevailing wind, but aren`t gusts possibly from just about any
direction at any time? In other words, was the science available then
to draw any meaningful conclusions from the data of blood splatter
analysis? And did the FBI even attempt to gather such data? And
wouldn`t the trunk be where the story of the slatter and spray best be
told. not puddles in the backseat?
> Bud, you can spout off all you want, but until you can provide ANY OTHER REASON
> UNDER THE SUN that accounts for the facts as we know them, you're just blowing
> smoke - and everyone knows it.
This must mean this.
> It's clear that *YOU* are the kook on this issue...
I am content to be skeptical of extraordinary explainations.
> You've been in denial until it's plain even to you that you simply cannot
> continue looking stupid... Robert Harris dropped out for the same reason... he
> didn't want to admit that the limo was cleaned either -
Now you say "either" which you know to be a lie. I admitted
yesterday I thought it was possible the limo was cleaned, thought it
was possible all along.
What I was doing was taking a critical look at the evidence supporting
this premise.
> but the evidence is
> simply overwhelming.
>
> Now you label the only possible reason as "crackpot", even though you have
> *NOTHING* to offer in it's place.
Nothing is needed. The limo was cleaned. If you want to go somewhere
with that information, that prove the intentions of the people behind
the actions. You never will be able to do that, so you are stuck with
"this must mean this" type constructs. If a plan was in place, then
people planned. Show the planning, who told what to who when. When was
it decide, who decided, what was their connect to the assassination,
ect. Or offer up these kinds of "this must mean this" constructs, which
will serve to impress your fellow kooks.
> You're a coward, Bud, but more importantly, you're dishonest.
Yah, thats why I produced more evidence the limo was cleaned.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1126402127.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> > TOP POST
>> >
>> > I was surfing around trying to find more information about this
>> >"washing of the limo" issue. First I found this, which seemed to
>> >support I wasn`t off base to claim that MacNeil could have been the
>> >source for all the reports of limo washing...
>> >
>> > From the Texas Observer, and article entitled "Dateline Dallas;
>> >November 22, 1963 as seen from the Observer archives" by Ronnie
>> >Drugger...
>> >
>> > "Because I had reached Yarborough first before many reporters came
>> >up, I then told a group of them what he had said from the start. This
>> >was a common scene the rest of the day, reporters sharing what they had
>> >learned with their colleagues."
>>
>>
>> And yet, you haven't shown a *SINGLE* account that you claim might be second
>> hand as actually *being* second hand.
>
> No, what I did was prove what you asked me to prove, that reporters
>where filling other reporters in with details of events they hadn`t
>actually witnessed themselves.
No, that's *NOT* what I asked you to prove. I asked you SPECIFICALLY to show
that the reporter's accounts that I had quoted were not first hand accounts.
It's rather silly to suggest that people don't talk to people, particularly shop
talk, and I refuse to make silly statements like that.
>Remember you saying the "MacNeil press
>cofference"?
Yep... a hypothetical that YOUR arguments were suggesting... unless you were
arguing for a time machine to bring reporters up to the 1988 publish date of
MacNeil's book. You choose...
>This reporter claims the sharing of information was "a
>common scene". Is he lying?
You *haven't* proven that *ANY* account was second hand. Clearly Jim Bishop's
was, but none of the reporter accounts have been shown by you to be other than
what they appear.
>> Still speculating, and still dishonest...
>>
>>
>> > Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
>> >for me...
>> >
>> > The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
>> >
>> > "The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
>> >pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
>> >that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
>> >sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
>> >the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
>> >certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
>> >milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
>> >allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
>> > I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
>>
>>
>> Where did he get the sponge, Bud? There's no eyewitness accounting of a
>> sponge, how can you clean the limo with just a bucket of water???
>
> That is just the kind of detail I found conspicuously lacking. Had
>it been included, it would have been one less red flag to me. In my
>searching around for details on these events, I actually became more
>and more convinced that the limo wasn`t cleaned.
With, I note, not a *SMIDGEON* of evidence in favor of the limo *not* being
cleaned.
And a dishonest refusal to state that any of the eyewitnesses were lying - which
they would *HAVE TO BE*.
>First, I kept finding
>interviews with Sen. Yarlbourough in front of the emergency entrance,
>which is right in front of the limo. How was he interviewed so much,
>and there be so few reports of limo cleaning I was wondering. Then I
>found a fuller version of Sidey`s original Time magazine article, which
>read "A guard was set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a
>pail of water and tried to wash the blood from the car. They left the
>sprays of red roses and arters that Jackie and Nellie had been given at
>the airport lying forlorn on the floor." That made me think that I
>hadn`t seen any flowers on the floor in the backseat, where he is
>describing the cleaning being done. In this account I just produced,
>which I think was an anniversary of the asassination thingy, he clears
>up where the flowers were. Perhaps someone asked him about this, and he
>decided to take this opportunity to clear it up, my search showed he
>does a lot of talks to universities and such where it could have been
>asked about.
>
>> > So, it seems Sidey may have been a first hand witness to the limo
>> >being cleaned after all (by the way, abbatoir means slaughterhouse, I
>> >looked it up). This is the type of report I was looking for and not
>> >seeing, an unequivocal and detailed account.
>>
>>
>> Such as MacNeil and Shirley Randall's??? Both of whom are detailed,
>
> No, they really aren`t detailed.MacNeil`s sure isn`t. This report by
>Sidey sure is. Had it been offered, I wouldn`t have questioned that the
>limo was cleaned.
"I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK
SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they
started putting the fabric top on it."
Just what part of this statement do you find hazy and unclear?
>> unequivocal, and *CORROBORATED BY OTHERS*.
>
> Who said they heard the man ask for personel to clean the limo other
>than Randall?
What was *corroborated*, Bud, was the fact that the limo was cleaned. Try not
to play stupid.
>> And both whom you labeled as 'making assumptions'.
>
> I raised it as a possibility that they may have been making
>assumptions.
In other words, they were liars. They stated things that they did not, of their
own knowledge, know.
Try to be honest, Bud. Admit that they lied. It's that simple...
>> >If Sidey original report read more like this one, I would have never have
>> >contested the washing of the limo.
>>
>>
>> Let's imagine that Sidey's account doesn't exist at all then.
>>
>> You're in the position of *REQUIRING* Jim Bishop to be a liar - since *HE*
>> states that the Secret Service said that the limo had been washed.
>
> No, he says orderlies cleaned it.
"limo had been washed" Nope... not correct... "orderlies cleaned it"...
Are you REALLY this stupid, Bud?
>If it becomes obvious orderlies
>didn`t clean it, the worth of what he relates diminishes.
So if the guilty parties admit that the limo was washed, but *THEY DIDN'T DO
IT*, then the limo wasn't washed???
Can't you come up with better logic than this, Oh Stupid One?
>Did he follow
>up and talk to hopsital personel to determine who these orderlies were?
>It`s sloppy for him not to, sloppy to include this unverified report in
>his book, and sloppy for him to not name the source he was getting the
>information from. All that from one sentence, I can`t wait to read the
>book.
Considering that you haven't *read* his book, your ability to toss out
speculations is amusing...
>> You must call Shirley Randall a liar - she reports that someone *ASKED*
>> her to have someone clean the limo.
>
> You must remain an idiot to think I need to call these people liars,
>Ben.
Ah! ... but you *D0*. There really isn't any other alternative. You seem to
think you can get away with referring to their statements as "assumptions".
>Surfing around looking into this, I saw two distinctly different
>accounts of how the two wounded men were taken from the limo. In one
>account, a nurse testified that it was necessary due to the
>configuration of the car to remove Connaly first.
Okay... let's fix this firmly: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
Once again *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
Are we straight here? Is this indeed what the unnamed nurse stated? One last
time: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>In Nellie Connaly`s
>account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
>while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
>is lying.
Rather than trust you for what Mrs. Connally stated, let's let her actual words
do the trick:
Mr. SPECTER What happened then after you got to the hospital?
Mrs. CONNALLY. We got to the hospital and, like I said, John heaved himself
over. They still could not seem to get Mrs. Kennedy or the President out of the
back of the car, but someone scooped him up in their arms and put him on a
stretcher. There were two stretchers there, and then they took him off
immediately to the emergency room, and they ran down the hall with the
stretcher, and I just ran along with them.
They took him into the emergency room, and right behind us came the President on
a stretcher, and they took him and put him in a room to the right.
Now, what fact can we determine from Mrs. Connally's testimony? Strangely
enough: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
Now, for some strange reason, I can't see any contradiction between some unnamed
nurse stating that Connally had been the first one removed, from Mrs. Connally's
own statement.
Why would *anyone* label *CORROBORATING* statements as lies in the absence of
any proof to the contrary???
Once again, Bud, your stupidity is showing itself...
>> You must call MacNeil a misguided liar as well.
>
> Is that what I did? Or did I raise the possibilty he may have made a
>faulty assumption?
"I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK
SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they
started putting the fabric top on it."
He either remembered correctly, or he lied about it.
>> There *isn't* any other position for you to take, and still remain
>> honest, Bud.
>
> Of course there is Ben. These "either-or" constructs only illustrate
>your lack of imagination.
Feel free to make a reasoned argument...
>> Yet you refused to do so.
>>
>> Sidey's account by itself is fairly similar to MacNeil's, that you
>> dismissed as making faulty assumptions...
>
> Which account by Sidey, his Nov 29th one, or the one I produced?
Either one.
You seem amazed by the mention of a sponge.
I just got back from the car wash... ran my van through an "economy wash"...
cost me $11 something... stood around with a dozen people waiting for *their*
cars to be washed, and not ONE SINGLE PERSON referred to the rags in evidence
all around us.
But despite your disbelief, my van is now sparklingly clean.
>> >Sidey`s report given here previously sounded too much like
>> >MacNeil`s account, with it`s "A guard was set up around the Lincoln.."
>> > In any case, I am convinced the limo was cleaned, although probably
>> >not much.
>>
>> You don't *know*??? Quite clearly, you *still* haven't read the citations I
>> gave, or viewed the photos I gave you the URL for.
>
> You directed me to page 39, I believe. No idea what book. I was
>working off the photos from the source I gave. When I said I went back
>and checked, I meant back to that source.
As stupid as you are, one would have presumed that you would have taken the time
to review *all* the citations I quoted.
Clearly anyone who thought that would be wrong...
>> >And, of course, the reason you believe it was cleaned
>> >remains crackpot, Ben.
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>>
>> Within just minutes, (and I really *am* referring to just one or two
>> minutes) of the limo's arrival at Parkland, someone in the Secret
>> Service was already attempting to get the limo *WASHED*. JFK probably
>> had not even arrived in the room where he died when the attempt was
>> being made to get someone to wash the limo.
>>
>> The rather crazy speed at which this happened is illustrated by the
>> speed with which someone *else* (Richards) was co-opted. Happening
>> right after Connally had been wheeled into *his* room, Richards is
>> gotten into the act by some unknown SS agent.
>>
>> The first responsibility of the SS was to secure the immediate
>> environment... yet *SOMEONE* wasn't thinking about this normal
>> responsibility, but was looking *back* at the limo.
>>
>> There's absolutely *NO* reason - there isn't a sane person in the
>> western world that thought that this limo was going to be used later
>> in the day...
>>
>> So why the incredible urgency? Eh, Bud??
>>
>> The *ONLY* conceivable reason is the destruction of evidence.
>
> Of course this is all conjecture.
It's *reasoned* conjecture. Based on the evidence.
>More "this must mean this". It is
>what is to be expected when someone trys to assign motivations through
>actions. It`s like watching a ball game, and if the coach of one team
>does something monumentally stupid, concluding from that the coach was
>trying to throw the game (like that coach that won the toss in that
>football game, and decided to allow the other team poccession. Does
>this prove he was paid off?). In any case you have no testimony from a
>single person regarding the motivations behind the cleaning of the
>limo, you just feel free to assign one. Did they give this young SS
>agent directions on exactly what needed to be destroyed, what parts
>were important, or did the evil minions just assume he`d get it right?
>Did the FBI ever run any tests concerning the blood splatters and
>patterns? What could it have told them if they had? You haven`t shown
>that any of this evidence you contend was being destroyed had any
>meaningful use as evidence.
Yes... I have. I've already given you a few citations on blood spatter
analysis. Why bother to lie, Bud?
And why can't you offer *ANY* reasoned analysis of what happened.
Actions have causes in the real world... in *yours*, they don't.
>> The Secret Service denied, by implication, that they had been
>> responsible for the washing of the limo - they knew, as any
>> intelligent person knows, that this was the destruction of evidence.
>
> Was Jackie destroying evidence when she was scooping up handfuls of
>JFK`s brain?
How could she have been? She retained it, preserved it, and turned it over to
authority at the first opportunity.
Playing stupid again, I see. You don't bother to think about things before you
spout off.
>> I gave you proof that blood spatter analysis had long been known, and
>> had even been rather heavily in the news just 8 years previous.
>
> What, the MacDonald case?
Quite clearly you can't even remember the case I listed.
Normal people would realize the stupidity of attempting to refer to a 1970 case
of Capt Jeffrey McDonald who was convicted of the murder of his wife and two
daughters... to prove a methodology being used 7 years PREVIOUSLY.
Do you suppose the use of time machines, again?
>A stabbing case indoors is way different
>than a gunshot in a moving open car.
Yep. When you use strawmen, you get straw.
But blood spatter analysis is exactly *that*. The analysis of how blood
spatters from the body, depending on the wound location, the body location, the
weapon used, the distance involved, etc...
>What are the wind currects
>produced by air flowing into a big open car like the limo? We might
>know the prevailing wind, but aren`t gusts possibly from just about any
>direction at any time? In other words, was the science available then
>to draw any meaningful conclusions from the data of blood splatter
>analysis?
Considering that you didn't bother to research the cites I gave when you asked
that question the last time, there's no reason to respond again...
>And did the FBI even attempt to gather such data? And
>wouldn`t the trunk be where the story of the slatter and spray best be
>told. not puddles in the backseat?
Assumptions and speculations... none of which change the fact that criminal
destruction of evidence was committed right under YOUR nose.
>> Bud, you can spout off all you want, but until you can provide ANY OTHER
>> REASON UNDER THE SUN that accounts for the facts as we know them, you're
>> just blowing smoke - and everyone knows it.
>
> This must mean this.
Yep... cowardly and dishonest.
>> It's clear that *YOU* are the kook on this issue...
>
> I am content to be skeptical of extraordinary explainations.
They are quite ordinary, in fact.
As proven by your inability to name *ANY* explanation.
>> You've been in denial until it's plain even to you that you simply cannot
>> continue looking stupid... Robert Harris dropped out for the same reason...
>> he didn't want to admit that the limo was cleaned either -
>
> Now you say "either" which you know to be a lie. I admitted
>yesterday I thought it was possible the limo was cleaned, thought it
>was possible all along.
Ah.... so all this time you've been lying?
>What I was doing was taking a critical look at the evidence supporting
>this premise.
No, you were attempting to use dishonest argument to undercut the clear and
convincing evidence.
You *still* won't admit that there's far more eyewitness accounts of the limo
being washed than that to any rifle ownership by LHO, etc...
>> but the evidence is
>> simply overwhelming.
>>
>> Now you label the only possible reason as "crackpot", even though you have
>> *NOTHING* to offer in it's place.
>
> Nothing is needed. The limo was cleaned. If you want to go somewhere
>with that information, that prove the intentions of the people behind
>the actions. You never will be able to do that, so you are stuck with
>"this must mean this" type constructs. If a plan was in place, then
>people planned. Show the planning, who told what to who when. When was
>it decide, who decided, what was their connect to the assassination,
>ect. Or offer up these kinds of "this must mean this" constructs, which
>will serve to impress your fellow kooks.
Too many words, no explanations...
>> You're a coward, Bud, but more importantly, you're dishonest.
>
> Yah, thats why I produced more evidence the limo was cleaned.
You needed *something* to peg your admission that I've been right all along on.
Bud
> In article <1126428022.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>In article <1126402127.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > TOP POST
> >> >
> >> > I was surfing around trying to find more information about this
> >> >"washing of the limo" issue. First I found this, which seemed to
> >> >support I wasn`t off base to claim that MacNeil could have been the
> >> >source for all the reports of limo washing...
> >> >
> >> > From the Texas Observer, and article entitled "Dateline Dallas;
> >> >November 22, 1963 as seen from the Observer archives" by Ronnie
> >> >Drugger...
> >> >
> >> > "Because I had reached Yarborough first before many reporters came
> >> >up, I then told a group of them what he had said from the start. This
> >> >was a common scene the rest of the day, reporters sharing what they had
> >> >learned with their colleagues."
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet, you haven't shown a *SINGLE* account that you claim might be second
> >> hand as actually *being* second hand.
> >
> > No, what I did was prove what you asked me to prove, that reporters
> >where filling other reporters in with details of events they hadn`t
> >actually witnessed themselves.
>
> No, that's *NOT* what I asked you to prove. I asked you SPECIFICALLY to show
> that the reporter's accounts that I had quoted were not first hand accounts.
In this exchange? I said...
"Because you have determined there was no interaction between these
people?"
To which you replied...
"Prove that there was..."
I think I have proven what you challenged me to prove, wouldn`t you
say? The "interaction" I`m refering to should be clear, as should the
people I`m refering to.
> It's rather silly to suggest that people don't talk to people, particularly shop
> talk, and I refuse to make silly statements like that.
>
> >Remember you saying the "MacNeil press
> >cofference"?
>
> Yep... a hypothetical that YOUR arguments were suggesting... unless you were
> arguing for a time machine to bring reporters up to the 1988 publish date of
> MacNeil's book. You choose...
I choose what I proved. That reporters were sharing information with
other reporters who weren`t there to witnesses events first hand. My
source said this was "a common scene" that day.
> >This reporter claims the sharing of information was "a
> >common scene". Is he lying?
>
>
> You *haven't* proven that *ANY* account was second hand.
I said I had? Your problem is you can`t tell assumptions from when
something is established. You may be able to convince yourself that
some assumptions are so likely that they somehow become established
fact. But thats not true.
> Clearly Jim Bishop's
> was, but none of the reporter accounts have been shown by you to be other than
> what they appear.
By "what they appear" can also be read as "how I choose to view
them". WHat they accurately could be called is an erroneous report from
an unnammed source (unless the source is named elsewhere in the book,
it isn`t named in the passage quoted here). Let me put it this way. If
a person claimed to overhear an SS agent expressing regret over having
orderlies wash the limo, and that person told Bishop, couldn`t it be
related in the book as it appears?
> >> Still speculating, and still dishonest...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
> >> >for me...
> >> >
> >> > The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
> >> >
> >> > "The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
> >> >pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
> >> >that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
> >> >sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
> >> >the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
> >> >certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
> >> >milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
> >> >allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
> >> > I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Where did he get the sponge, Bud? There's no eyewitness accounting of a
> >> sponge, how can you clean the limo with just a bucket of water???
> >
> > That is just the kind of detail I found conspicuously lacking. Had
> >it been included, it would have been one less red flag to me. In my
> >searching around for details on these events, I actually became more
> >and more convinced that the limo wasn`t cleaned.
>
> With, I note, not a *SMIDGEON* of evidence in favor of the limo *not* being
> cleaned.
Prove a negative? With what, pictures of the limo not being
cleaned? Indications can exist aside from evidence. Lots of reporters
might lead me to believe there should be lots of reports. With only a
few offered, that might make them slightly suspect to me. Reports being
too alike might be suspect, as might reports relate different people
doing the same things (like if one report said circus clowns, or
orderlies cleaning the limo, I might be suspicious of that one). Lack
of detail in the articles might raise a red flag (I get the same
feeling when I read some police reports, and they breeze through
crutial information). You see, you make the assumption that a request
for personel to clean the limo and the request for the bucket of water
to be the same people asking for the same reason. It may be, and it may
be that that is the most likeliest explaination in the whole world.
But, until you can find and verify that the person who was asked for
the water, it can only ever be speculation, assumption, and can never
really be proven. You might say the same applies to the whole case
against Oz, which is true. The best mechanism we have to establish
these things was circumvented when Oz was killed.
> And a dishonest refusal to state that any of the eyewitnesses were lying - which
> they would *HAVE TO BE*.
No, they wouldn`t. That is the only possibility your limited
imagination can come up with. I am aware of the phenomenon of asserting
something as fact that isn`t unknowingly. I am aware that people
somethines consider their assumptions as fact. I am aware that
reporters sometimes print stories about things they don`t witness first
hand.
Why did you change the issue from "detailed" to "hazy and unclear"?
Surely you know the difference.
> >> unequivocal, and *CORROBORATED BY OTHERS*.
> >
> > Who said they heard the man ask for personel to clean the limo other
> >than Randall?
>
>
> What was *corroborated*, Bud, was the fact that the limo was cleaned. Try not
> to play stupid.
Don`t try to pass off that what Randle related is corroborated
without a witness who corroborates it. What she relates is a request
for personel. Can you corroborate that request or not?
> >> And both whom you labeled as 'making assumptions'.
> >
> > I raised it as a possibility that they may have been making
> >assumptions.
>
>
> In other words, they were liars.
If thats what you think I am saying then you are stupider than I
estimated you to be.
> They stated things that they did not, of their
> own knowledge, know.
Hell, that makes just about everthing you say a lie. Is it of you
own knowledge what was said to Randle? And people sometimes regard
their impressions as fact off. Also, the brain has the amazing capacity
to fill in voids in observations, sometimes without the person even
being aware they`ve done this, when they replay the event in their
mind, the brain`s editing is included. All these things and more are
possible. You can deny all these phenomenon in your quest to present
all information as either truth or lies, you might even be able to
convince your groupie-kooks of it. But some people know better (like
the WC).
> Try to be honest, Bud. Admit that they lied. It's that simple...
The only thing to admit is that you *need* these things to appear as
the facts they aren`t, instead of the assumptions they actually are, so
it appears that you are taking the leaps you make off of solid footing,
when you really haven`t begun to establish that footing as solid fact.
It is what can be expected when someone is trying to make a case from
nothing. You will never, not in forty years, not in 400, be able to
establish the motivations you ascribe to the cleaning of the limo as
fact. Or establish as fact your theories about the 7.6mm object in the
AP X-ray. Or establish as fact that there was a shooter on the knoll.
> >> >If Sidey original report read more like this one, I would have never have
> >> >contested the washing of the limo.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's imagine that Sidey's account doesn't exist at all then.
> >>
> >> You're in the position of *REQUIRING* Jim Bishop to be a liar - since *HE*
> >> states that the Secret Service said that the limo had been washed.
> >
> > No, he says orderlies cleaned it.
>
>
> "limo had been washed" Nope... not correct... "orderlies cleaned it"...
>
> Are you REALLY this stupid, Bud?
I can read what Bishop wrote. And he wrote that orderlies cleaned
it. Yet they didn`t.
> >If it becomes obvious orderlies
> >didn`t clean it, the worth of what he relates diminishes.
>
>
> So if the guilty parties admit that the limo was washed, but *THEY DIDN'T DO
> IT*, then the limo wasn't washed???
What guilty parties? Have you established some kind of guilt in this
matter?
> Can't you come up with better logic than this, Oh Stupid One?
Well, there is a number of assumptions in that "logic", chief being
that the SS thought they were guilty of something. Can you prove the SS
thought they were guilty of a crime. Not "how could they not", not
"this must mean this", but actually prove these motivations you assign?
> >Did he follow
> >up and talk to hopsital personel to determine who these orderlies were?
> >It`s sloppy for him not to, sloppy to include this unverified report in
> >his book, and sloppy for him to not name the source he was getting the
> >information from. All that from one sentence, I can`t wait to read the
> >book.
>
> Considering that you haven't *read* his book, your ability to toss out
> speculations is amusing...
But I seem aware of something that he is not. That orderlies didn`t
clean the limo.
> >> You must call Shirley Randall a liar - she reports that someone *ASKED*
> >> her to have someone clean the limo.
> >
> > You must remain an idiot to think I need to call these people liars,
> >Ben.
>
> Ah! ... but you *D0*. There really isn't any other alternative. You seem to
> think you can get away with referring to their statements as "assumptions".
Are you saying that this phenomenon is unknown to you, that people
sometimes consider their assumptions as fact? You, of all people should
be familiar with it.
I will go back to the source (if I can find it, I was floating all
over) and make sure it is as I presented it to be. Other contradictions
I came across is Sen. Yarlbourough seems to sometimes condemn the SS
for their slow reaction, sometimes to praise them.
> Why would *anyone* label *CORROBORATING* statements as lies in the absence of
> any proof to the contrary???
>
>
> Once again, Bud, your stupidity is showing itself...
We`ll see.
>
> >> You must call MacNeil a misguided liar as well.
> >
> > Is that what I did? Or did I raise the possibilty he may have made a
> >faulty assumption?
>
> "I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK
> SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they
> started putting the fabric top on it."
>
> He either remembered correctly, or he lied about it.
They are the only two things you can come up with. What a dope.
> >> There *isn't* any other position for you to take, and still remain
> >> honest, Bud.
> >
> > Of course there is Ben. These "either-or" constructs only illustrate
> >your lack of imagination.
>
>
> Feel free to make a reasoned argument...
Why am I called upon to prove you wrong? Because you can never prove
yourself right?
> >> Yet you refused to do so.
> >>
> >> Sidey's account by itself is fairly similar to MacNeil's, that you
> >> dismissed as making faulty assumptions...
> >
> > Which account by Sidey, his Nov 29th one, or the one I produced?
>
>
> Either one.
>
> You seem amazed by the mention of a sponge.
>
> I just got back from the car wash... ran my van through an "economy wash"...
> cost me $11 something... stood around with a dozen people waiting for *their*
> cars to be washed, and not ONE SINGLE PERSON referred to the rags in evidence
> all around us.
But no sponges, right? They are more noteworthy.
> But despite your disbelief, my van is now sparklingly clean.
Didn`t know I had an opinion on it.
> >> >Sidey`s report given here previously sounded too much like
> >> >MacNeil`s account, with it`s "A guard was set up around the Lincoln.."
> >> > In any case, I am convinced the limo was cleaned, although probably
> >> >not much.
> >>
> >> You don't *know*??? Quite clearly, you *still* haven't read the citations I
> >> gave, or viewed the photos I gave you the URL for.
> >
> > You directed me to page 39, I believe. No idea what book. I was
> >working off the photos from the source I gave. When I said I went back
> >and checked, I meant back to that source.
>
>
> As stupid as you are, one would have presumed that you would have taken the time
> to review *all* the citations I quoted.
You gave citiations. I saw you sypplied one URL, which Marsh
reported busted, which he supplied another, which led me to a picture
that doesn`t show motorcycle cops helping put on the roof of the limo.
> Clearly anyone who thought that would be wrong...
>
>
> >> >And, of course, the reason you believe it was cleaned
> >> >remains crackpot, Ben.
> >> >
> >> > <SNIP>
> >>
> >> Within just minutes, (and I really *am* referring to just one or two
> >> minutes) of the limo's arrival at Parkland, someone in the Secret
> >> Service was already attempting to get the limo *WASHED*. JFK probably
> >> had not even arrived in the room where he died when the attempt was
> >> being made to get someone to wash the limo.
> >>
> >> The rather crazy speed at which this happened is illustrated by the
> >> speed with which someone *else* (Richards) was co-opted. Happening
> >> right after Connally had been wheeled into *his* room, Richards is
> >> gotten into the act by some unknown SS agent.
> >>
> >> The first responsibility of the SS was to secure the immediate
> >> environment... yet *SOMEONE* wasn't thinking about this normal
> >> responsibility, but was looking *back* at the limo.
> >>
> >> There's absolutely *NO* reason - there isn't a sane person in the
> >> western world that thought that this limo was going to be used later
> >> in the day...
> >>
> >> So why the incredible urgency? Eh, Bud??
> >>
> >> The *ONLY* conceivable reason is the destruction of evidence.
> >
> > Of course this is all conjecture.
>
>
> It's *reasoned* conjecture. Based on the evidence.
Call it "clever", or "likely" or whatever else, it`s still
conjecture.
> >More "this must mean this". It is
> >what is to be expected when someone trys to assign motivations through
> >actions. It`s like watching a ball game, and if the coach of one team
> >does something monumentally stupid, concluding from that the coach was
> >trying to throw the game (like that coach that won the toss in that
> >football game, and decided to allow the other team poccession. Does
> >this prove he was paid off?). In any case you have no testimony from a
> >single person regarding the motivations behind the cleaning of the
> >limo, you just feel free to assign one. Did they give this young SS
> >agent directions on exactly what needed to be destroyed, what parts
> >were important, or did the evil minions just assume he`d get it right?
> >Did the FBI ever run any tests concerning the blood splatters and
> >patterns? What could it have told them if they had? You haven`t shown
> >that any of this evidence you contend was being destroyed had any
> >meaningful use as evidence.
>
>
> Yes... I have. I've already given you a few citations on blood spatter
> analysis. Why bother to lie, Bud?
Have you shown that the FBI had any intention of using this science
in this case?
> And why can't you offer *ANY* reasoned analysis of what happened.
The limo was cleaned.
> Actions have causes in the real world... in *yours*, they don't.
Prove the motivations you claim for those actions. Never can, never
will. Don`t believe me, take what you have to any authorities you like.
Tell them how "this must mean this". See what they tell you.
> >> The Secret Service denied, by implication, that they had been
> >> responsible for the washing of the limo - they knew, as any
> >> intelligent person knows, that this was the destruction of evidence.
> >
> > Was Jackie destroying evidence when she was scooping up handfuls of
> >JFK`s brain?
>
>
> How could she have been? She retained it, preserved it, and turned it over to
> authority at the first opportunity.
Altered it also. When she handled the evidence, wasn`t she
compromising it`s value as evidence?
> Playing stupid again, I see. You don't bother to think about things before you
> spout off.
I am. And I know the part "intent" plays in law. Apparently you are
unaware. For instance, a lot of evidence in the OJ case was compromised
and destroyed. Ever hear of anyone being charged with destruction of
evidence in that case? Why do you suppose not? I know why. You need to
prove intent before the law consideres it a crime. Not "what else could
it be" reasoning, but you need to actually prove the intent behind the
actions. And that is something you will never be able to do. You can
impress the kooks with this stuff, but it`s application in any real way
is nil.
> >> I gave you proof that blood spatter analysis had long been known, and
> >> had even been rather heavily in the news just 8 years previous.
> >
> > What, the MacDonald case?
>
> Quite clearly you can't even remember the case I listed.
I can`t remember you citing a case at all.
> Normal people would realize the stupidity of attempting to refer to a 1970 case
> of Capt Jeffrey McDonald who was convicted of the murder of his wife and two
> daughters... to prove a methodology being used 7 years PREVIOUSLY.
>
> Do you suppose the use of time machines, again?
The MacDonald case wasn`t a very complex one as blood splatter goes.
No wind, and you can recreate the effects with some grape juice and a
knife.
> >A stabbing case indoors is way different
> >than a gunshot in a moving open car.
>
>
> Yep. When you use strawmen, you get straw.
>
> But blood spatter analysis is exactly *that*. The analysis of how blood
> spatters from the body, depending on the wound location, the body location, the
> weapon used, the distance involved, etc...
And a mist of blood is subject to all kinds of influence.
> >What are the wind currects
> >produced by air flowing into a big open car like the limo? We might
> >know the prevailing wind, but aren`t gusts possibly from just about any
> >direction at any time? In other words, was the science available then
> >to draw any meaningful conclusions from the data of blood splatter
> >analysis?
>
> Considering that you didn't bother to research the cites I gave when you asked
> that question the last time, there's no reason to respond again...
Yah, I must not have scrolled down that far. I saw nothing but
"coward" and "liar" in your response so I just didn`t bother scanning
down the whole thing. If I thought you actually had something
substantial to say, I`d have choose <read more>.
> >And did the FBI even attempt to gather such data? And
> >wouldn`t the trunk be where the story of the slatter and spray best be
> >told. not puddles in the backseat?
>
>
> Assumptions and speculations... none of which change the fact that criminal
> destruction of evidence was committed right under YOUR nose.
"And did the FBI even attempt to gather such data?" is an
assumption? And take your evidence of criminality to a professional,
see what they say about it`s legal merits.
> >> Bud, you can spout off all you want, but until you can provide ANY OTHER
> >> REASON UNDER THE SUN that accounts for the facts as we know them, you're
> >> just blowing smoke - and everyone knows it.
> >
> > This must mean this.
>
>
> Yep... cowardly and dishonest.
Prove what you say, don`t challenge me to unprove what you say. If
*this* does indeed mean *this*, then prove it. You know you will never
be able to, so is the point? Endlesly assert things you can`t prove?
> >> It's clear that *YOU* are the kook on this issue...
> >
> > I am content to be skeptical of extraordinary explainations.
>
>
> They are quite ordinary, in fact.
To a kook they would seem ordinary and reasonable.
> As proven by your inability to name *ANY* explanation.
Is that how things are proven? What scientific method is that?
> >> You've been in denial until it's plain even to you that you simply cannot
> >> continue looking stupid... Robert Harris dropped out for the same reason...
> >> he didn't want to admit that the limo was cleaned either -
> >
> > Now you say "either" which you know to be a lie. I admitted
> >yesterday I thought it was possible the limo was cleaned, thought it
> >was possible all along.
>
>
> Ah.... so all this time you've been lying?
Can quote me stating unequivocally that the limo wasn`t cleaned?
> >What I was doing was taking a critical look at the evidence supporting
> >this premise.
>
>
> No, you were attempting to use dishonest argument to undercut the clear and
> convincing evidence.
No, I was taking a critical look at the evidence you were presenting
to support the premise the limo was cleaned.
> You *still* won't admit that there's far more eyewitness accounts of the limo
> being washed than that to any rifle ownership by LHO, etc...
You mean I won`t compare an apple to an orange for you?
> >> but the evidence is
> >> simply overwhelming.
> >>
> >> Now you label the only possible reason as "crackpot", even though you have
> >> *NOTHING* to offer in it's place.
> >
> > Nothing is needed. The limo was cleaned. If you want to go somewhere
> >with that information, then prove the intentions of the people behind
> >the actions. You never will be able to do that, so you are stuck with
> >"this must mean this" type constructs. If a plan was in place, then
> >people planned. Show the planning, who told what to who when. When was
> >it decided, who decided, what was their connection to the assassination,
> >ect. Or offer up these kinds of "this must mean this" constructs, which
> >will serve to impress your fellow kooks.
>
>
> Too many words, no explanations...
Theres a cowardly evasion for you. Put your fingers in your ears and
repeat after me.. LA-LA-LA-LA... I`ll repeat what I wrote so you can
practice. "Nothing is needed. The limo was cleaned. If you want to go
somewhere with that information, then prove the intentions of the
people behind the actions. You will never be able to do that, so you
are stuck with "this means this" type constructs. If a plan was in
place, then people planned. Show the planning, who told what to who
when. When was it decided, who decided, what was their connection to
the asassination, ect. Or offer up these kinds of "this must mean this"
constructs, which will only serve to impress your fellow kooks.
>
>
> >> You're a coward, Bud, but more importantly, you're dishonest.
> >
> > Yah, thats why I produced more evidence the limo was cleaned.
>
> You needed *something* to peg your admission that I've been right all along on.
No, I really didn`t.
Bud
<SNIP>
TOP POST
I looked back through my history and found the site that I had read
the account that gave me the impression that Nellie Conally was saying
her husband was left while they attended to the President. I`ll include
the source and details at the end.
> Okay... let's fix this firmly: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
Never said differently. I only said that I had read what seemed to
me to be differing accounts.
> Once again *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
OK.
> Are we straight here? Is this indeed what the unnamed nurse stated? One last
> time: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point. The point
I was making was that I could read differing and even contradicting
accounts of events from two different people describing the same event
and still not conclude that either is lying. That was the point, try to
keep it firmly in mind, and resist going off on the tangent of these
accounts.
> >In Nellie Connaly`s
> >account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
> >while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
> >is lying.
>
>
> Rather than trust you for what Mrs. Connally stated, let's let her actual words
> do the trick:
I was working off her actual words. I did remember them accurately.
> Mr. SPECTER What happened then after you got to the hospital?
>
> Mrs. CONNALLY. We got to the hospital and, like I said, John heaved himself
> over. They still could not seem to get Mrs. Kennedy or the President out of the
> back of the car, but someone scooped him up in their arms and put him on a
> stretcher. There were two stretchers there, and then they took him off
> immediately to the emergency room, and they ran down the hall with the
> stretcher, and I just ran along with them.
>
> They took him into the emergency room, and right behind us came the President on
> a stretcher, and they took him and put him in a room to the right.
>
> Now, what fact can we determine from Mrs. Connally's testimony? Strangely
> enough: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>
> Now, for some strange reason, I can't see any contradiction between some unnamed
> nurse stating that Connally had been the first one removed, from Mrs. Connally's
> own statement.
>
> Why would *anyone* label *CORROBORATING* statements as lies in the absence of
> any proof to the contrary???
>
>
> Once again, Bud, your stupidity is showing itself...
Why do you assume that the accounts I had read were these? This is
what I had read when I wrote that these accounts were contradictory...
Almost instantly they arrived at at the hospital as the car
screeched to a stop. Secret Service men swarmed. Naturally, most of the
attention was being paid to Mr and Mrs Kennedy. "No one was taking John
out of the car. I knew in my heart the President was dead. I wondered
how long I must wait before I could insist that someone tend to my
dying husband."
This is what I had read, and even though it seemed to contradict
what I had read from the account I had read from a nurse, I didn`t
consider either person to be liars. Now, once more for the stupid, I`m
not arguing which account is truer. I was using this as an example of
how I can read differing accounts without concluding either party is
lying. In this case, it seems the impressions
that stand out most in Nellie`s mind are the ones of concern for her
husbansd and the desire to se him treated quickly.
If this URL works, her whole account can be found here...
http://web.lconn.com/mysterease/connally.htm
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> TOP POST
>
> I looked back through my history and found the site that I had read
>the account that gave me the impression that Nellie Conally was saying
>her husband was left while they attended to the President. I`ll include
>the source and details at the end.
>
>> Okay... let's fix this firmly: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>
> Never said differently. I only said that I had read what seemed to
>me to be differing accounts.
>
>> Once again *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>
> OK.
>
>> Are we straight here? Is this indeed what the unnamed nurse stated?
>> One last time: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>
> Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point.
It was the *ONLY* contradiction you asserted. Turned out not to be true, of
course...
>The point
>I was making was that I could read differing and even contradicting
>accounts of events from two different people describing the same event
>and still not conclude that either is lying.
And yet, you can't *produce* these differing accounts.
I *DO* conclude that the SS was lying. They *HAD A MOTIVE* to lie, and I judge
the evidence to be rather overwhelming that the washing of the limo was a SS
operation from beginning to end... as it would *have* to have been.
>That was the point, try to
>keep it firmly in mind, and resist going off on the tangent of these
>accounts.
When your memory conflicts with the testimony, I'll go with the testimony.
>> >In Nellie Connaly`s
>> >account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
>> >while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
>> >is lying.
>>
>>
>>Rather than trust you for what Mrs. Connally stated, let's let her actual words
>> do the trick:
>
> I was working off her actual words. I did remember them accurately.
Then you're going to have to *cite* for them.
This doesn't contradict the unnamed nurse's account *either*. You're losing it,
Bud.
> This is what I had read, and even though it seemed to contradict
>what I had read from the account I had read from a nurse, I didn`t
>consider either person to be liars. Now, once more for the stupid, I`m
>not arguing which account is truer.
You can't... they DON'T CONTRADICT.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1126558641.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > TOP POST
> >
> > I looked back through my history and found the site that I had read
> >the account that gave me the impression that Nellie Conally was saying
> >her husband was left while they attended to the President. I`ll include
> >the source and details at the end.
> >
> >> Okay... let's fix this firmly: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
> >
> > Never said differently. I only said that I had read what seemed to
> >me to be differing accounts.
> >
> >> Once again *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> Are we straight here? Is this indeed what the unnamed nurse stated?
> >> One last time: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
> >
> > Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point.
>
> It was the *ONLY* contradiction you asserted.
Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point.
> Turned out not to be true, of
> course...
Whether it was true or not was never the point.
> >The point
> >I was making was that I could read differing and even contradicting
> >accounts of events from two different people describing the same event
> >and still not conclude that either is lying.
>
>
> And yet, you can't *produce* these differing accounts.
But the point I was making is that it is possible to read two
contradicting or conflicting accounts of the same event given by two
different people, and neither be lying.
> I *DO* conclude that the SS was lying.
Isn`t that special?
> They *HAD A MOTIVE* to lie, and I judge
> the evidence to be rather overwhelming that the washing of the limo was a SS
> operation from beginning to end... as it would *have* to have been.
You seem to have yourself firmly convinced. Congratulations.
> >That was the point, try to
> >keep it firmly in mind, and resist going off on the tangent of these
> >accounts.
>
> When your memory conflicts with the testimony, I'll go with the testimony.
Don`t let me stop you.
> >> >In Nellie Connaly`s
> >> >account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
> >> >while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
> >> >is lying.
> >>
> >>
> >>Rather than trust you for what Mrs. Connally stated, let's let her actual words
> >> do the trick:
> >
> > I was working off her actual words. I did remember them accurately.
>
>
> Then you're going to have to *cite* for them.
Did.
What did the unnamed, unquoted nurse say, Ben??
> > This is what I had read, and even though it seemed to contradict
> >what I had read from the account I had read from a nurse, I didn`t
> >consider either person to be liars. Now, once more for the stupid, I`m
> >not arguing which account is truer.
>
> You can't... they DON'T CONTRADICT.
You don`t think so?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <1126558641.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
>> >
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > TOP POST
>> >
>> > I looked back through my history and found the site that I had read
>> >the account that gave me the impression that Nellie Conally was saying
>> >her husband was left while they attended to the President. I`ll include
>> >the source and details at the end.
>> >
>> >> Okay... let's fix this firmly: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>> >
>> > Never said differently. I only said that I had read what seemed to
>> >me to be differing accounts.
>> >
>> >> Once again *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>> >
>> > OK.
>> >
>> >> Are we straight here? Is this indeed what the unnamed nurse stated?
>> >> One last time: *CONNALLY WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIMO FIRST*
>> >
>> > Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point.
>>
>> It was the *ONLY* contradiction you asserted.
>
> Who was brought out of the limo first was never the point.
Let's examine your assertion again:
"I saw two distinctly different accounts of how the two wounded men were taken
from the limo. In one account, a nurse testified that it was necessary due to
the configuration of the car to remove Connaly first. In Nellie Connaly`s
account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
while they attended to the President."
Looks pretty clear here... you even specify that these are "accounts of how the
two wounded men were taken from the limo".
The order that the men were removed from the limo is the *ONLY* contradiction
you asserted.
Looks like you can't even remember what you said. Lied, didn't you?
How can you even *think* about calling someone a liar if there are *NO
CONTRADICTIONS FROM OTHER STATEMENTS OR KNOWN FACTS*???
>> Turned out not to be true, of
>> course...
>
> Whether it was true or not was never the point.
Making a "point" with statements that don't prove your point is an exercise in
stupidity.
>> >The point
>> >I was making was that I could read differing and even contradicting
>> >accounts of events from two different people describing the same event
>> >and still not conclude that either is lying.
>>
>>
>> And yet, you can't *produce* these differing accounts.
>
> But the point I was making is that it is possible to read two
>contradicting or conflicting accounts of the same event given by two
>different people, and neither be lying.
If you can't produce conflicting accounts, then you should be smart enough not
to offer any... particularly accounts that you *ASSERT* are contradictory, but
turn out not to be.
>> I *DO* conclude that the SS was lying.
>
> Isn`t that special?
Why? You agree.
>> They *HAD A MOTIVE* to lie, and I judge
>> the evidence to be rather overwhelming that the washing of the limo was a SS
>> operation from beginning to end... as it would *have* to have been.
>
> You seem to have yourself firmly convinced. Congratulations.
Being the coward that you are, you'll refuse to offer *ANY* other scenario that
fits the facts.
>> >That was the point, try to
>> >keep it firmly in mind, and resist going off on the tangent of these
>> >accounts.
>>
>> When your memory conflicts with the testimony, I'll go with the testimony.
>
> Don`t let me stop you.
You can't. That's the point. When LNT'ers make assertions, I always go check
'em. You'd be amazed at how often I end up correcting people with the *correct*
testimony.
>> >> >In Nellie Connaly`s
>> >> >account, she was distressed because they left he husband in the car
>> >> >while they attended to the President. Guess what? I don`t think either
>> >> >is lying.
>> >>
>> >>
>>>>Rather than trust you for what Mrs. Connally stated, let's let her actual
>>words
>> >> do the trick:
>> >
>> > I was working off her actual words. I did remember them accurately.
>>
>>
>> Then you're going to have to *cite* for them.
>
> Did.
No, you did *not*. You *STILL* have not cited, quoted, or proven that Mrs.
Connally "was distressed because they left he husband in the car while they
attended to the President." And, I note, by implication of your previous
sentence that Connally was removed *second*.
You argued that there was a contradiction... there isn't any. You couldn't have
"remembered them accurately".
"a nurse testified that it was necessary due to the configuration of the car to
remove Connaly first."
I've already *QUOTED* Mrs. Connally's testimony that *AGREES* with this account.
So, Bud, did you lie? Did the nurse *really* say that Connally was removed
second?
What are the odds that if you ever name or cite for this nurse, that you've been
completely accurate with *her* statements? We've already seen that you weren't
with Mrs. Connally.
>> > This is what I had read, and even though it seemed to contradict
>> >what I had read from the account I had read from a nurse, I didn`t
>> >consider either person to be liars. Now, once more for the stupid, I`m
>> >not arguing which account is truer.
>>
>> You can't... they DON'T CONTRADICT.
>
> You don`t think so?
Stupid, aren't you?
Robert Harris
>
>Another repost for Bud:
>
>
>Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
>(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>
>*************************************************************************
>1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
>(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
>Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the
>president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret Service
>men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT
>WAS PUT IN,
Holy crap!
Are you still ranting about this?
YES! I have agreed repeatedly that someone did indeed, start to clean
up the limo while it was at Parkland and that that was probably the
Secret Service.
I have also agreed that the Secret Service told an orderly to clean it
up, as well.
The only thing being evaded here, is my question to you about how any
of this this demonstrates sinister intentions.
Even Palamyra admits that he hasn't got a shred of evidence that
indicts the Secret Service. When are you going to summon the integrity
and sanity, to do the same?
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Ben Holmes
>
>On 8 Sep 2005 18:08:43 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Another repost for Bud:
>>
>>
>>Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
>>(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>>
>>*************************************************************************
>>1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
>>(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
>>Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken
>>the president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the
>>Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG
>>LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN,
>
>Holy crap!
>
>Are you still ranting about this?
Why are you asking me?
Don't you think that this is a question best put to Bud?
If another idiot steps forward, and argues that the limo wasn't washed, why
would you think that I wouldn't simply repeat the same info that *you* were
unable to locate via a simple Google search? After all, Bud couldn't find it
either...
>YES! I have agreed repeatedly that someone did indeed, start to clean
>up the limo while it was at Parkland and that that was probably the
>Secret Service.
>
>I have also agreed that the Secret Service told an orderly to clean it
>up, as well.
>
>The only thing being evaded here, is my question to you about how any
>of this this demonstrates sinister intentions.
You've refused to offer any suggestion as to how it can be seen as anything
*other* than sinister, given the speed with which it was done.
The Secret Service's primary function at Parkland was to secure the grounds...
no-one in their right mind is going to argue that the limo was needed later in
the day. So why was the Secret Service attempting to get the limo washed EVEN
BEFORE JFK MADE IT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM?
Don't tell me that I've "evaded" your question. I've made these points before.
We also have the interesting fact that the Secret Service, although admitting
that the limo *was* washed, stated that orderlies did it, rather than take
responsibility. It's unfortunate that this is second-hand, through Jim Bishop,
rather than primary testimony, but it's there to be explained.
>Even Palamyra admits that he hasn't got a shred of evidence that
>indicts the Secret Service. When are you going to summon the integrity
>and sanity, to do the same?
When the evidence will support it.
Or when *reasonable* argument can be made on this point, explaining the facts as
we know them. Feel free to start anytime.
Robert Harris
>In article <4326d11e...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>>
>>On 8 Sep 2005 18:08:43 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Another repost for Bud:
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
>>>(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
>>>1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
>>>(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
>>>Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken
>>>the president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the
>>>Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG
>>>LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN,
>>
>>Holy crap!
>>
>>Are you still ranting about this?
>
>Why are you asking me?
>
>Don't you think that this is a question best put to Bud?
Why would anyone want to ask Bud anything??
>
>If another idiot steps forward, and argues that the limo wasn't washed, why
>would you think that I wouldn't simply repeat the same info that *you* were
>unable to locate via a simple Google search? After all, Bud couldn't find it
>either...
Well, Bud is entitled to his opinions. Exactly how many people other
than you, do you suppose, even care what he thinks or says??
>
>
>>YES! I have agreed repeatedly that someone did indeed, start to clean
>>up the limo while it was at Parkland and that that was probably the
>>Secret Service.
>>
>>I have also agreed that the Secret Service told an orderly to clean it
>>up, as well.
>>
>>The only thing being evaded here, is my question to you about how any
>>of this this demonstrates sinister intentions.
>
>
>You've refused to offer any suggestion as to how it can be seen as anything
>*other* than sinister, given the speed with which it was done.
Well, I will take care of that now then.
The blood and gore was disgusting and somebody thought it should be
cleaned up before it dried.
>
>The Secret Service's primary function at Parkland was to secure the grounds...
>no-one in their right mind is going to argue that the limo was needed later in
>the day. So why was the Secret Service attempting to get the limo washed EVEN
>BEFORE JFK MADE IT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM?
Well, there are two possibilities.
One - because they were in a state of shock and didn't really consider
JFK's blood and brain tissue to be evidence.
Two - they thought the blood and gore was important evidence and
wanted to remove it to cover up some aspect of the crime.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If you cannot prove that
number two is correct, then just admit it, and move on.
>
>Don't tell me that I've "evaded" your question. I've made these points before.
You are still evading the question, which is whether or not, you have
evidence that the Secret Service either took part in the killing or
tried to coverup the identity of the killers.
Compare your arguments, for example, with what we know about the FBI.
I can go on for hours, and never repeat myself - showing you solid,
documentable proof that they deliberately covered up or withheld
evidence of conspiracy from the public, and the Warren Commission, and
that they employed Oswald as an informant.
I suppose it is not impossible that someone in the Secret Service was
involved. But there is just no evidence to prove it. The only reason
this is even an issue today is, that many people still don't realize
why they did not react until after Z285. In the Zapruder film, even
Hill appears to be just standing around, well after two (or more?)
gunshots have been fired.
This is where my own research kicks in, Ben. Hill and the others
didn't react, for the same reason that Connally never heard the shot
that hit him, and that Jackie and everyone else were nonreactive to
any of the shots prior to Z285. It was immediately after 285, that
Greer spun back to the front at enormous speed, and in his panic, hit
the brake instead of the gas.
After 285, their reactions were *incredibly* fast and responsive.
I realize this is not the issue at hand, but it is to others, who are
lurking this thread and still think the Secret Service was
deliberately, nonresponsive to the attack.
>
>We also have the interesting fact that the Secret Service, although admitting
>that the limo *was* washed, stated that orderlies did it, rather than take
>responsibility. It's unfortunate that this is second-hand, through Jim Bishop,
>rather than primary testimony, but it's there to be explained.
Someone undoubtedly, recalled that an orderly was told to clean it up,
and just didn't pay attention to who did it.
Do you really think that someone lied, through sinister movitivation,
because he didn't want the world to know that the orderly forgot to do
what she was toldm (as she admitted), and that this partial cleanup
was probably done by a SS agent, instead??
You have to get a perspective on this, Ben. I see the same thing every
day, in the nutter group. People apply totally different logic to
events in the JFK case, than they do to "real life" issues. In the
real life, we sometimes don't pay much attention to who threw out the
garbage, or mopped up the spilt beer.
And yes, this was certainly more important, but it probably didn't
seem so at the time, in comparison with the murder itself.
>
>
>>Even Palamyra admits that he hasn't got a shred of evidence that
>>indicts the Secret Service. When are you going to summon the integrity
>>and sanity, to do the same?
>
>When the evidence will support it.
Well, until that time, why not talk about the folks whose guilt, we
CAN prove?
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
>
>On 13 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
>>In article <4326d11e...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>>On 8 Sep 2005 18:08:43 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another repost for Bud:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
>>>>(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
>>>>
>>>>*************************************************************************
>>>>1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
>>>>(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
>>>>Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken
>>>>the president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the
>>>>Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG
>>>>LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN,
>>>
>>>Holy crap!
>>>
>>>Are you still ranting about this?
>>
>>Why are you asking me?
>>
>>Don't you think that this is a question best put to Bud?
>
>
>Why would anyone want to ask Bud anything??
Because Bud is the one who brought it up again, of course.
>>If another idiot steps forward, and argues that the limo wasn't washed, why
>>would you think that I wouldn't simply repeat the same info that *you* were
>>unable to locate via a simple Google search? After all, Bud couldn't find it
>>either...
>
>Well, Bud is entitled to his opinions. Exactly how many people other
>than you, do you suppose, even care what he thinks or says??
You evidently do - you objected to his raising of the issue again.
>>>YES! I have agreed repeatedly that someone did indeed, start to clean
>>>up the limo while it was at Parkland and that that was probably the
>>>Secret Service.
>>>
>>>I have also agreed that the Secret Service told an orderly to clean it
>>>up, as well.
>>>
>>>The only thing being evaded here, is my question to you about how any
>>>of this this demonstrates sinister intentions.
>>
>>
>>You've refused to offer any suggestion as to how it can be seen as anything
>>*other* than sinister, given the speed with which it was done.
>
>Well, I will take care of that now then.
>
>The blood and gore was disgusting and somebody thought it should be
>cleaned up before it dried.
Well, I applaud your try. It's probably the best that can be done.
>>The Secret Service's primary function at Parkland was to secure the grounds...
>>no-one in their right mind is going to argue that the limo was needed later in
>>the day. So why was the Secret Service attempting to get the limo washed EVEN
>>BEFORE JFK MADE IT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM?
>
>Well, there are two possibilities.
>
>One - because they were in a state of shock and didn't really consider
>JFK's blood and brain tissue to be evidence.
>
>Two - they thought the blood and gore was important evidence and
>wanted to remove it to cover up some aspect of the crime.
>
>The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If you cannot prove that
>number two is correct, then just admit it, and move on.
I note that your explanation doesn't explain the Secret Service's attempt to
place the "blame" of the limo cleaning on orderlies.
>>Don't tell me that I've "evaded" your question. I've made these points before.
>
>You are still evading the question, which is whether or not, you have
>evidence that the Secret Service either took part in the killing or
>tried to coverup the identity of the killers.
Yes. I've listed it.
>Compare your arguments, for example, with what we know about the FBI.
>I can go on for hours, and never repeat myself - showing you solid,
>documentable proof that they deliberately covered up or withheld
>evidence of conspiracy from the public, and the Warren Commission, and
>that they employed Oswald as an informant.
>
>I suppose it is not impossible that someone in the Secret Service was
>involved. But there is just no evidence to prove it.
Only if you don't look. Even the HSCA thought that the security had been
uniquely insecure that day.
>The only reason
>this is even an issue today is, that many people still don't realize
>why they did not react until after Z285. In the Zapruder film, even
>Hill appears to be just standing around, well after two (or more?)
>gunshots have been fired.
>
>This is where my own research kicks in, Ben. Hill and the others
>didn't react, for the same reason that Connally never heard the shot
>that hit him, and that Jackie and everyone else were nonreactive to
>any of the shots prior to Z285. It was immediately after 285, that
>Greer spun back to the front at enormous speed, and in his panic, hit
>the brake instead of the gas.
>
>After 285, their reactions were *incredibly* fast and responsive.
>
>I realize this is not the issue at hand, but it is to others, who are
>lurking this thread and still think the Secret Service was
>deliberately, nonresponsive to the attack.
I've never made that argument, nor do I think it's a valid one.
>>We also have the interesting fact that the Secret Service, although admitting
>>that the limo *was* washed, stated that orderlies did it, rather than take
>>responsibility. It's unfortunate that this is second-hand, through Jim Bishop,
>>rather than primary testimony, but it's there to be explained.
>
>Someone undoubtedly, recalled that an orderly was told to clean it up,
>and just didn't pay attention to who did it.
>
>Do you really think that someone lied, through sinister movitivation,
>because he didn't want the world to know that the orderly forgot to do
>what she was toldm (as she admitted), and that this partial cleanup
>was probably done by a SS agent, instead??
Yep. It *was* after all, a criminal act.
>You have to get a perspective on this, Ben. I see the same thing every
>day, in the nutter group. People apply totally different logic to
>events in the JFK case, than they do to "real life" issues. In the
>real life, we sometimes don't pay much attention to who threw out the
>garbage, or mopped up the spilt beer.
>
>And yes, this was certainly more important, but it probably didn't
>seem so at the time, in comparison with the murder itself.
>
>>
>>
>>>Even Palamyra admits that he hasn't got a shred of evidence that
>>>indicts the Secret Service. When are you going to summon the integrity
>>>and sanity, to do the same?
>>
>>When the evidence will support it.
>
>Well, until that time, why not talk about the folks whose guilt, we
>CAN prove?
I'm *always* interested in what the evidence shows. That's why I take the time
to actually *read* the eyewitness testimony, rather than look at a picture and
deride everything.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2005 08:06:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <4326d11e...@news20.forteinc.com>, Robert Harris says...
> >>
> >>On 8 Sep 2005 18:08:43 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Another repost for Bud:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Here's some more tidbits to embarrass Robert Harris:
> >>>(Reposted from, and Thanks to Vince Palamara!)
> >>>
> >>>*************************************************************************
> >>>1) "The Way We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil
> >>>(1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197: "The president's car was there [Parkland
> >>>Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken
> >>>the president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the
> >>>Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG
> >>>LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN,
> >>
> >>Holy crap!
> >>
> >>Are you still ranting about this?
> >
> >Why are you asking me?
> >
> >Don't you think that this is a question best put to Bud?
>
>
> Why would anyone want to ask Bud anything??
Those seeking enlightenment?
> >
> >If another idiot steps forward, and argues that the limo wasn't washed, why
> >would you think that I wouldn't simply repeat the same info that *you* were
> >unable to locate via a simple Google search? After all, Bud couldn't find it
> >either...
>
> Well, Bud is entitled to his opinions.
Thankee.
> Exactly how many people other
> than you, do you suppose, even care what he thinks or says??
Hell, I`m not even sure I fit in that category.
> >
> >
> >>YES! I have agreed repeatedly that someone did indeed, start to clean
> >>up the limo while it was at Parkland and that that was probably the
> >>Secret Service.
> >>
> >>I have also agreed that the Secret Service told an orderly to clean it
> >>up, as well.
> >>
> >>The only thing being evaded here, is my question to you about how any
> >>of this this demonstrates sinister intentions.
> >
> >
> >You've refused to offer any suggestion as to how it can be seen as anything
> >*other* than sinister, given the speed with which it was done.
>
> Well, I will take care of that now then.
>
> The blood and gore was disgusting and somebody thought it should be
> cleaned up before it dried.
I`ll go one better with a one word theory. Flies.
> >The Secret Service's primary function at Parkland was to secure the grounds...
> >no-one in their right mind is going to argue that the limo was needed later in
> >the day. So why was the Secret Service attempting to get the limo washed EVEN
> >BEFORE JFK MADE IT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM?
>
> Well, there are two possibilities.
>
> One - because they were in a state of shock and didn't really consider
> JFK's blood and brain tissue to be evidence.
Was it ever gathered as such?
> Two - they thought the blood and gore was important evidence and
> wanted to remove it to cover up some aspect of the crime.
What about the theory that they were actualy robots programed to do
so?
> The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If you cannot prove that
> number two is correct, then just admit it, and move on.
Ben doesn`t find it significant that he can`t prove anything he
says.
<SNIP>