Harold Norman: Key Assassination Witness
David Von Pein
knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear
the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt
action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth
floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly
above me." -- Via Harold Norman's 12/04/63 Affidavit
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
=================================================
Does anyone truly think that JFK assassination witness Harold Norman
was full of shit when he claimed to hear the rifle's bolt being worked
directly over his head on 11/22/63 during the shooting....and hearing
exactly THREE shots fired from over his head...and hearing exactly
THREE spent hulls hitting the floor above him?
Mr. Norman's testimony in all of the above "three-shot" regards
provides an additional (and, IMO, very important) layer of evidence
leading toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder (coupled
with all the other ballistics, witness, fingerprint, and fiber evidence
that back up LHO's guilt as well).
Because if Norman was dead-wrong about everything he heard going on
directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Book Depository, it
would certainly be an incredible coincidence that he would be WRONG,
but in such a "THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR"
fashion....which is a scenario that is backed up by lots of other
evidence (and witnesses), besides just Mr. Norman.
And if conspiracists want to paint Norman as yet another in a series of
"liars" or "WC shills" after the assassination, it only adds one more
ludicrous and unproven "He Was Lying" allegation to the already-silly
length of such a list that has been created by some CTers over the
years since 1963.
And it's interesting to note in the Warren Report, that all seven
Warren Commissioners (in three separate re-creations of bullet shells
hitting the floor above Norman's position on the TSBD's 5th Floor) were
each easily able to hear the cartridge cases hitting the floor.
In addition, there's also the test that was conducted by WC counsel
member David W. Belin. To quote Belin directly on this matter.....
"We scheduled the testimony of Harold Norman on March 24, 1964. Before
he testified, we wanted to interview him on the fifth floor of the TSBD
Building and check whether these sounds {of the rifle shells hitting
the floor and of the rifle's bolt being worked by the gunman} could be
heard.
We had with us the equipment necessary to make the test. A Secret
Service agent with the bolt action rifle stood with Joe Ball in the
southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. I
stayed with Harold Norman on the fifth floor directly below.
Before giving the signal to conduct the experiment, I waited until a
train passed on the nearby railroad overpass so there would be plenty
of street noise. In addition, at that time, several large trucks were
moving down Elm Street. I then yelled to have the test begin.
I smiled, for I really did not expect to hear anything. Then, with
remarkable clarity, I could hear the thump as a cartridge case hit the
floor. There were two more thumps as the two other cartridge cases hit
the floor above me.
The Secret Service agent then worked the bolt of the rifle back and
forth, and this too could be heard with clarity.
When we re-assembled after the re-enactment, I said to my colleague,
'Joe, if I had not heard it myself, I would never have believed it'."
-- David Belin; Pages 139-140 of Belin's 1973 book "November 22, 1963:
You Are The Jury"
~~~~~~
Now, either Harold Norman was an amazing liar, or somebody fired three
shots from just above Norman's 5th-Floor Depository position on
11/22/63 (with three shells hitting the floor too).*
* = And Norman confirmed he did hear precisely THREE shells/("hulls")
hitting the plywood floor directly above him during the shooting. He
confirmed this fact in 1986 when he was being questioned about the
matter by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi during the television Docu-Trial "On
Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".
Here is some of the verbatim testimony given by Harold Norman at that
TV Docu-Trial in 1986:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired
directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound
of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
from directly above you?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call
them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle
being pushed back and forward."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Three."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of
the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the
assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book
Depository Building?"
MR. NORMAN -- "No sir."
~~~~~~
Many CTers think the three shells were "planted" in the Sniper's Nest
after the shooting. But Norman heard the shells dropping to the floor
DURING THE SHOOTING, not several seconds AFTER the gunfire ceased.
Do some CTers think that the plotters had a guy standing in the SN
dropping shells to the floor IN REAL TIME during the actual 8 seconds
when the assassination was taking place on November 22nd?
"Real Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting"! Now THAT'S Patsy-Framing
organization and efficiency, for damn sure! :)
So, if Norman's not a liar (and there's absolutely no reason to think
he is), then three shots WERE definitely fired from that southeast
corner window of the Book Depository's sixth floor. Period. Which is
something that very few conspiracy theorists I've ever talked to
actually believe occurred that day.
And -- Harold Norman's testimony, all by itself, makes CTer Robert
Groden's crazy "No Shots Were Likely Fired From The SN Window At All"
theory look even MORE ludicrous than it already is.
David Von Pein
July 2006
January 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELATED LINK:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> "I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I
> knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear
> the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt
> action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth
> floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly
> above me." -- Via Harold Norman's 12/04/63 Affidavit
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
>
> =================================================
>
> Does anyone truly think that JFK assassination witness Harold Norman
> was full of shit when he claimed to hear the rifle's bolt being worked
> directly over his head on 11/22/63 during the shooting....and hearing
> exactly THREE shots fired from over his head...and hearing exactly
> THREE spent hulls hitting the floor above him?
>
of Dallas Sorrels apparently dismissed Norman's claims--he didn't
bother to have him taken for a statement Friday, or even Saturday.
Methinks, the Norman "story" took a while to make up....
dw
lazu...@webtv.net
that the shots came from below and to their right, and NOT from above
and to their left? That's four against one, Bubba. I believe Norman just
went along to get along.
lazu...@webtv.net
the shooting, if they heard shots only from directly above them? I
believe they heard shots from the west, just as the 4th floor
earwitnesses claimed.
David Von Pein
Which means you're forced to put BOTH of the other 5th-Floor witnesses
(Williams and Jarman) in the same "Went Along To Get Along" category
too. How convenient for all of you kooks.
Plus: you surely aren't denying that SOME shots DID come from where
Norman said they came from.....are you? Or have you joined forces with
Robert "NO SHOTS FROM THE NEST" Groden for the new year?
Let's look at Williams' & Jarman's words. (Again, are they liars
too?)........
B.R. WILLIAMS. Harold {Norman} was sitting next to me, and he said it
came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I
could tell you.
Mr. BALL. Tell us.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My exact words were, "No bull shit." And we jumped up.
Mr. BALL. Norman said what?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said it came directly over our heads. "I can even hear
the shell being ejected from the gun hitting the floor." But I did not
hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't
paying attention.
~~~~~~~
Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and
I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I
said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody
was shooting at the President.
Mr. BALL - And then did they say anything?
Mr. JARMAN - Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought the
shots had came from above us, and I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few
debris in his head. It was sort of white stuff, or something, and I
told him not to brush it out, but he did anyway.
Mr. BALL - He had some white what, like plaster?
Mr. JARMAN - Like some come off a brick or plaster or something.
Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything else that you remember?
Mr. JARMAN - He said that he was sure that the shot came from inside
the building because he had been used to guns and all that, and he said
it didn't sound like it was too far off anyway. And so we ran down to
the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything about hearing cartridges or ejection
or anything like that, do you remember?
Mr. JARMAN - That was after we got down to the west side of the
building.
Mr. BALL - After you got down where?
Mr. JARMAN - To the west side of the building.
~~~~~~~
And please note it WASN'T Norman who said to Bonnie Ray he had
dust/plaster in his hair -- that was Junior Jarman who said that to
Williams.
Must have been a "Trilogy Of Liars" on that 5th Floor, eh?
A new year has dawned....but the kookshit is still the same.
I had hoped for a miracle at 12:00 midnight. Guess not though.
David Von Pein
that kooks will go to exonerate LHO....a practice that never seems to
bother a devout CT-Kook....and I can't help but wonder why?).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/151ec25ab83f9730
>>> "Interestingly, he {Junior Jarman, via his 11/23/63 affidavit} says *nothing* about hearing the shots immediately above him." <<<
Well, for Christ sake, Ben, Jarman never mentions the shooting AT ALL
in his entire affidavit! Of course he didn't mention where he thought
the shots came from in a document which has zero comments in it at all
regarding the shooting in question. (Why he never mentions the shooting
in that document, I haven't a clue. Do you? Was he told by the evil
cover-uppers that he shouldn't mention anything about the actual
shooting in his affidavit? Prob'ly so, huh?)
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
>>> "He {Jarman} *does*, however, illustrate that LHO wasn't even aware that JFK was coming right in front of the TSDB [sic]." <<<
Yeah, Ben, be sure and use that hunk of evidence to help exonerate your
hero named Lee. That information there will surely help completely
ERASE the fact that Oswald's gun, shells, and fingerprints were found
upstairs later that day.
Lee Harvey Oswald, IMO, was smarter than some people give him credit
for (on occasion anyway; his lousy escape plan notwithstanding).*
* = Although it's fairly obvious that LHO really hadn't the slightest
idea whether if he'd get a good chance to kill JFK that day or not,
right up to 12:30. In fact, he almost HAD to have had a mindset of "IF
I GET A CHANCE TO SHOOT HIM, FINE; IF NOT, THAT'S FINE, TOO".
Because there is no way in hell he shoots from that window if there's
anybody else on that 6th Floor at 12:30. That, IMO, partially explains
his crappy escape plan. Because Oswald HIMSELF really didn't believe
he'd get a chance to commit that crime.
How COULD he have thought he'd have a good chance at doing it from a
location that could have conceivably been crawling with other employees
(which it almost was; because several employees, including Norman,
Jarman, Shelley, Lovelady, and Arce, were discussing, shortly before
12:30, the possibility of going back up to the 6th Floor to watch the
motorcade; luckily for Oswald, none of those employees decided to go to
that floor to watch the parade).
Back to Lee Harvey's "smarts":
It was certainly smart of Lee to spout "I'm just a patsy" in the DPD
corridor (that great-big lie worked to perfection, setting the "Patsy"
wheels in motion amongst wide-eyed CT-Kooks; and those are wheels that
haven't stopped turning to this day).
And it was smart of Oswald, IMO, to play it kinda dumb on the morning
of 11/22, when he asked fellow employees questions like "What's going
on outside?"; and "Which direction will he be coming from?".
Oswald was probably playing a cute little "game" on those occasions,
IMO. And that patented Oswald smirk probably crossed his murdering face
after he asked those seemingly-"innocent" questions prior to the
motorcade's arrival in DP on that Friday morning.
But there is absolutely NO DOUBT at all that Oswald positively KNEW
that the President was going to be in Dallas on Friday, 11/22. We know
he knew this because Ruth Paine told him (on Thursday night) that JFK
was coming to town the following day. Oswald played a little game with
Ruth on that occasion too -- as he shrugged, mumbled something
incoherent, and then brushed on by Ruth on the Paine's front lawn on
11/21 PM.
But, quite obviously, Oswald knew of Kennedy's impending 11/22 visit
PRIOR to that Ruth Paine remark on Thursday night -- because he went to
Irving on Thursday to get his rifle out of Ruth's garage. That is a
rock-solid certainty, based on all the circumstantial evidence that
tells any reasonable person examining the case that he went there to
get that rifle.
It's quite possible, however, that one of Oswald's questions to fellow
employees was not part of his cute "game" he was playing with them that
day -- the question about the exact streets JFK's car would be
travelling. Oswald might have simply guessed that the motorcade would
proceed through town on Main Street....but perhaps he was not aware of
the Elm St. turn.
I think he probably did read it in the paper on Wednesday (via his
habit of reading day-old newspapers while at work in the TSBD's Domino
Room). The precise routing of the motorcade was published in both
Dallas papers on Tuesday (11/19).
It really wouldn't have mattered, however. Because Oswald could still
have fairly-easily shot JFK on Main Street, if the turn onto Elm had
been eliminated.
>>> "He {Jarman} also makes it clear that Norman *DID NOT* pinpoint the sounds as you believe he did:
Mr. BALL - Did Norman say anything else that you remember?
Mr. JARMAN - He said that he was sure that the shot came from inside
the building..." <<<
Big LOL here!
For crying out loud, Ben! Can you possibly split those hairs to a finer
pulpy mass?!
Jarman said that Norman claimed the shots came "from inside the
building" (the TSBD), but that's not nearly good enough testimony for
Ben-Kook FROM A SECOND-HAND WITNESS WHO WAS TELLING THE WC WHAT
SOMEBODY ELSE SAID! Ben wants the whole nine yards from Jarman re. what
another person (Norman) said.
And I guess Ben would rather search through Jarman's testimony when it
comes to what NORMAN said, instead of going to the horse's mouth to see
what Norman HIMSELF had to say on the matter to the WC....which was
this, btw:
Mr. BALL -- "And you said you thought it came from where?"
Mr. NORMAN -- "Above where we were, above us."
Oh, yes, I forgot. ~slaps forehead~
Norman's been "coerced" by the evil bad guys! So nothing Norman says
can be trusted! It's ALL lies! Right, Ben-K?
Tell me, is Jarman's testimony about Norman's saying "the shots came
from inside the building" worth a hoot either? Or is Jarman merely a
pawn too, being manipulated every which way but loose by the evil
conspirators?
David Von Pein
I did, indeed, notice that Harold Norman's affidavit was dated December
4th, instead of November 22nd. And did think that was a bit unusual.
But let me ask Ben-boy 2 questions......
1.) Do you think that the DPD (or the SS/FBI) performed a secret "test"
of some kind prior to December 4th (the date of Norman's affidavit),
with this test confirming the fact that when bullet shells were dropped
to the floor on the sixth floor, those shells could be heard on the
floor below?
Because the WC didn't conduct its first "Shells Dropping To The Floor"
test until March 20th, 1964....months after Norman gave his affidavit
stating that he had specifically HEARD BULLET SHELLS HITTING THE FLOOR
ABOVE HIM during the shooting on 11/22.
The above point will probably be tossed aside as a "Who Cares?" by
Ben-Kook, but in the "CT Scenario" that Ben likes to paint re. Norman
and his "lies" (or "coerced lies" if you will), it seems somewhat
important that the after-the-assassination "cover-up operatives" should
have MADE SURE that, in fact, bullet shells COULD be heard by people on
the 5th Floor. And they needed to make sure of this PRIOR to Norman
stating it in his December 4th affidavit.
Because, unless ALL SEVEN Warren Commissioners were also "in" on this
portion of the proverbial "cover-up" involving the bullet shells being
audible as they hit the plywood floor, the people putting those words
in Norman's mouth have got a potentially fairly-large problem. That
being -- what if shells positively could NOT have been heard by human
ears through the floorboards of the Depository (on ANY of the four
different 1964 re-creations of the event)?
What would the strong-arming plotters have done then? They'd be stuck
with forcing Norman to say something on December 4th that was PROVEN to
be untrue and physically impossible on 4 later occasions (the 4 tests
conducted in the TSBD throughout 1964).
I suppose Ben has a good answer for this nifty little hunk of
"smooth-sailing" for the plotters/cover-up agents, though.
Were all 7 Commission members lying when they said they could "easily
hear" shells hitting the floor above the 5th Floor?
Or is this just one more (of probably HUNDREDS) of the extremely lucky
breaks the grand Patsy Team experienced while they proceeded to frame a
completely-innocent man named Oswald for the murders of two men on
11/22/63?
~~~~~
2.) Are there ANY witnesses who you feel were not "gotten to" or
"coerced" in some fashion by the DPD, the FBI, the SS, or the WC? Let's
see a list of those witnesses who actually told the truth, the whole
truth, and nuttin' but (and then we'll see how many on that list had
something to say that CT-Kooks can use to spell "Conspiracy" with).
(I can now envision such a Ben-approved witness list with one single
name on it -- S.M. Holland.)
(July 2006)
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> "I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew
> that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the
> expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action
> of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and
> I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me." --
> Via Harold Norman's 12/04/63 Affidavit
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
>
> =================================================
>
> Does anyone truly think that JFK assassination witness Harold Norman was
> full of shit when he claimed to hear the rifle's bolt being worked
> directly over his head on 11/22/63 during the shooting....and hearing
> exactly THREE shots fired from over his head...and hearing exactly THREE
> spent hulls hitting the floor above him?
>
with this story? (See, I think, Barb's reply.) How many days did it
take Norman to come up with *anything*? As many as *four* days. I
believe his first statement or interview was with the FBI,
11/26--Tuesday. The big bolt action was, I believe, the Friday before
that. Of course, in later years, Norman would repeat the bolt story at
the drop of a hat. But the hat did not drop for maybe a week after the
assassination. What was the Norman story before that? You can see it
in Jarman's FBI interview from 11/24, & from Norman's from 11/26.
Hint: It did *NOT* involve a rifle bolt or falling shells. No, at
first Norman had a *different* explanation for saying he thought shots
were coming from above. On 11/24, Jarman said that "Norman stated at
that time that something had FALLEN FROM ABOVE HIM & THAT A PIECE OF
DEBRIS, IN ADDITION, HAD HIT HIM IN HIS FACE...." On 11/26, he told
the FBI that he "thought the shot had been fired from the floor
directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head
from the window & looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing
because SMALL PARTICLES OF DIRT WERE FALLING FROM ABOVE HIM." Neither
Norman nor Jarman says anything on the 24th or 26th about Norman's
hearing bolt action or falling hulls! The falling-debris story of
course was passed on to *Bonnie Ray Williams* for the trio's grand
finale at the hearings, but it was tested here, on the road, with
Norman! It's fine that you are such a trusting soul, David, but the
Norman/Jarman/Williams story changed with each statement/testimony,
even after their Broadway-worthy performance at the hearings. By the
time (12/4) of his SS statement, the falling-hulls story was finally in
place, & Norman never said another word I believe about being hit by
cascading plaster or gravel or pigeon shit. (Remember Baker's
pigeons!) This change, however, in the prextext for his believing
shots came from the floor above, suggests that *neither* pretext is
true--that he was neither hit by debris from above, nor heard
bolt/hulls from above. This was just another piece of fiction invented
to make people think that there was shooting from the sixth floor, when
there was not.... Norman was full of shit! Lotta merde there, & you're
welcome to scoop it up....
dw
> Mr. Norman's testimony in all of the above "three-shot" regards provides
> an additional (and, IMO, very important) layer of evidence leading toward
> Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder (coupled with all the other
> ballistics, witness, fingerprint, and fiber evidence that back up LHO's
> guilt as well).
>
> Because if Norman was dead-wrong about everything he heard going on
> directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Book Depository, it would
> certainly be an incredible coincidence that he would be WRONG, but in such
> a "THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR" fashion....which is a
> scenario that is backed up by lots of other evidence (and witnesses),
> besides just Mr. Norman.
>
> And if conspiracists want to paint Norman as yet another in a series of
> "liars" or "WC shills" after the assassination, it only adds one more
> ludicrous and unproven "He Was Lying" allegation to the already-silly
> length of such a list that has been created by some CTers over the years
> since 1963.
>
> And it's interesting to note in the Warren Report, that all seven Warren
> Commissioners (in three separate re-creations of bullet shells hitting the
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***If someone was not firing a rifle from above him, why would Norman
have tried to look out the window, above him to see if he could see a
gun, as he said in his original statement? If a test was performed by
the Warren Commission, to determine whether shells could be heard
dropping, or a bolt action heard, and it was, why would Norman not have
heard it at the time?
***Ron Judge
David Von Pein
So you are actually stating your official belief, here and now, that
ZERO rifle shots were fired from above Harold Norman's head on
11/22/63?
I didn't think anyone but Bob Groden was still in that
unbelievable-silly camp.
Geez.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
I acknowledge shots fired from that window ... but that does not mean
Norman's tale can be accepted as fact, when it was a long road to what
he ultimately testified to.
Norman was the issue you brought up, yet you do not reply to issues re
Norman pointed out to you.
Barb :-)
>
aeffects
Many around here have noticed; Davey does have a tough time staying on
point -- ALL the time! He is rather selfish isn't he?
> Barb :-)
> >
Walt
Excellent rhetorical question, solid logic, and common sense.......
Days later the three stooges just wanted to "help" the authorities by
bolstering the tale that by that time had been broadcast dozens of
times of times. The three stooges probably had no sinster intent for
making up tales that they thought the authorities wanted to hear, but
there's no doubt that's exactly what they did.
Only a moron blinded by his ego can't see that there were no shots
fired from the so called sniper's nest.
Walt
David Von Pein
A new year has dawned....but the Walt-Moron-Kook has still gained no
further wisdom (or sense) re. the "so-called Sniper's Nest" and the
murder of John Kennedy. A pity.
The "SO-CALLED SNIPER'S NEST". I always love to hear that one. It's
better than "Warrenatti" or "Lone Neuter".
BTW --- It takes a really off-the-wall kook with some Kong-sized gonads
to purport that no shots at all came from the ONE & ONLY verified and
known source of gunfire on Nov. 22.
(How can you walk with such a burden in that sack, Walt? Just curious.)
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Only a moron blinded by his ego can't see that there were no shots fired from the so called sniper's nest." <<<
>
> A new year has dawned....but the Walt-Moron-Kook has still gained no
> further wisdom (or sense) re. the "so-called Sniper's Nest" and the
> murder of John Kennedy. A pity.
sitdown STUMP, you just might learn something, if you can break away
from your groupies, that is!
David Von Pein
Oh yeah....like how there were ZERO shots coming from the "so-called"
SN...right?
Get off it, Healy....even YOU don't buy that shit! And yet you'll come
back into this thread, right on cue, to slap a kook named Walt on the
back re. something that nobody in their right mind would believe.
You're a hypocrite and a kook. A terrific combination indeed.
BTW, here's the type of shit I'll "learn" from that nutcase named
Walt...(and if anybody can get through Walt's tripe via the below link
without pissing their pants from laughing so hard, it'd be a
miracle).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/cadd2bf2a00b20fc
David Von Pein
re Norman pointed out to you." <<<
Norman's testimony is perfectly consistent with what even most CTers
believe (i.e., shots fired from the SN, by a rifle which was no doubt
ejecting cartridges as it was being fired).
I find it interesting (but certainly not altogether surprising) when CTers
create "issues" (like this Norman stuff) in their attempt to muddy-up the
unmuddied waters....even when the self-muddied waters created by the CTers
don't really advance their "case" for a multi-gun conspiracy in the
slightest way.
Kinda odd....don't you think? (Prob'ly not...you're a CTer, after all.)
Anthony Marsh
So far as I know Groden has always accepted that some shot was fired
from the sniper's nest. The only researcher who does not accept that is
Lifton, and his followers.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Norman was the issue you brought up, yet you do not reply to issues
"CREATE AN ISSUE" re Norman? Of course his testimony is consistent
with the bottom line .... he wasn't a darlin' of the WC for nothing.
Norman's developing story created the issue about Norman ... not
pointing you to documentary evidence that his story did evolve over
time.
When you post Norman as a witness who makes the bottomline absolute,
and ask others if they think he was full of BS in his testimony ...
and then you are SHOWN documentary evidence from the record that shows
his story evolved, then you use that bottomline to airily dismiss any
probs with that same witness when shown his story changed, well ....
one cannot help but wonder why you asked in the first place.
Rhetorical, of course as you thought Norman was some big trump card
... when shown otherwise, you wave a dismissive hand .... kinda funny,
but nothing new in this arena, I'm afraid.
Your dismissive airy wave exposes your real interest in really
evaluating the evidence in this case, in my opinion.
You have none, in my opinion ... or no interest in any that
contradicts your pronouncements anyway.
Is Norman really a credible witness for hearing three shots, three
shells pinging, right over his head? An honest evaluation, regardless
of which side of the knoll one happens to fall on would say "no" ...
and there is a documentary trail as to why not.
Whether you like it ... or will even acknowledge it, or not.
Barb :-)
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- Hey! DVP said only Groden held that belief. Someone else said
only Lifton did, does. I think you were the first to discount the
"nest" entirely, on the newsgroups, & now I fully agree.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
You mean the place that Fritz dumped the hulls in?
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ron, Ron--the point is, the story about Norman sticking out his head &
being hit by whatever was made up, just like the (later) clickclickaboom!
story. There was nothing for Norman to get hit with or to hear....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Whether or not the "nest" was actually used, Norman' credibility has now
been impaired so badly that he cannot, credibly, be used as a witness to
Miscellanous Rifle Sounds from Sixth Floor. Tell us how you will use him,
in the future, dear David, even tho the Rifle Sounds story was a
late-season replacement for a show that just didn't make it (the Falling
Debris show)....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Nor, Barb, does it seem he addresses those issues in his reply to you.
Poor David wants everything one way, & will undoubtedly go on using Harold
Norman as proof of Sixth-Floor Action (bolt, hulls & all)....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Norman was the issue you brought up, yet you do not reply to issues
> re Norman pointed out to you." <<<
>
> Norman's testimony is perfectly consistent with what even most CTers
> believe (i.e., shots fired from the SN, by a rifle which was no doubt
> ejecting cartridges as it was being fired).
>
> I find it interesting (but certainly not altogether surprising) when CTers
> create "issues" (like this Norman stuff) in their attempt to muddy-up the
> unmuddied
"Unmuddied"! Where have you been the last 40 years? "Unmuddied" only in
your head, which seems impervious to anything which might rock your Ark of
Evidence.
waters....even when the self-muddied waters created by the CTers
> don't really advance their "case" for a multi-gun conspiracy
David, David, I don't *need* "multi-gun"--at least, not the *firing* of
more than one gun--for conspiracy. And Norman muddied things himself when
he changed his story. Admit it--he's useless now, for your
sixth-floor-shooting purposes, at least....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Yeah, I've noticed that. "Pronouncements" is a good word for his
postings.... If I may indulge in a bit of the pop psychology which LNers
seems to like to use on CTers re their take on Oswald--David is insecure,
& overcompensates for that insecurity.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ouch! That hurts--that means you didn't read my thing on Oswald & his
two hats (Patsy, Conspirator)....
dw
Barb Junkkarinen
I'm hoping he goes with Jarman next. :-^)
Barb :-)
>
>dw
David Von Pein
Oh why don't you shut the fuck up, Don-Kook.
Your credibility (what was left) has been dealt a knockout blow (by
yourself) via your latest crazy hunk of nonsense regarding "The Big Fix
On The TSBD Upper Floors".
You buried yourself with that shit. You might as well bow out now.
And now you seem to be holding hands with Walt "No Shots From The Nest"
Kook -- which means you're even further into insanity-land.
You must think the Patsy-Framers actually risked being spotted with
MULTIPLE RIFLES on the upper TSBD floors AT THE SAME TIME....because we
KNOW there was a rifle in the 6th-Floor Nest, because both Bob Jackson
and Tom Dillard were prompted to TAKE A PICTURE of that window within
seconds of the last shot being fired (and testified to the effect they
saw a rifle barrel sticking out of the SIXTH-floor window).
So these ace plotters actually, per your theory (I think), deliberately
were sticking multiple rifles out of windows, knowing full well they
might be photographed or seen in the process.
What if TWO rifles had been filmed? What would that have done to the
ONE-PATSY plot?
Food for Patsy thought.
No worries, though, the Don/Walt Tag Team will invent a way for two
rifles to merge into just one. Kinda like Groden has invented a way for
TEN gunshots from FOUR locations to merge into only THREE shots from a
place where he thinks ZERO shots came from--the SN!
Place My Ricky Ricardo Laugh Here ----> ___________.
(Lucy!! I'm home from the Patsy-Framers' meeting! Are Fred & Ethel
coming for supper after they plant those shells in the Nest?!)
David Von Pein
And, naturally, everything Junior had to say was pure shit, per you
kooks, right?
Geez-Louise, what a tribe.
Are you gonna call Vince B. a liar when he supports every bit of
Norman's and Williams' and Jarman's and Brennan's testimony?
David Von Pein
The only thing I'll admit is.....
You're a really big kook/nuthatch!
(That's fairly obvious though.)
Walt
Hello Don, It's been obvious to me for a long time that the so called
"Sniper's Nest" was merely a Smokers Nook construsted by a TSBD
employee who was a slacker who wanted a place where he could goof off
and smoke out of sight of his boss. The open window in the Smokers
Nook, at the longest distance from the stairs and elevator, provided
ventilation which allowed the tale tale smoke to escape. ( Smoking was
forbidden and grounds for termination of employment) The slacker placed
the boxes to form a barrier between the stairs and elevator and provide
a place where he could hide and goof off. We know the space was used
as a Smoker's Nook because an empty Viceroy cigarette package and
several cigarette butts we found there.
The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
At the TSBD?
What's your source?
>The slacker placed
> the boxes to form a barrier between the stairs and elevator and provide
> a place where he could hide and goof off. We know the space was used
> as a Smoker's Nook because an empty Viceroy cigarette package and
> several cigarette butts we found there.
What's your source that these items were found inside your "nook"?
>
> The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
> impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
> from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
> obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
> details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
> immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
> wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
> give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
What glimpse did LHO give us?
>
> Walt
Walt
Many photos of the interior of the TSBD which show large "NO SMOKING"
signs.
>
> What's your source?
>
>
>
> >The slacker placed
> > the boxes to form a barrier between the stairs and elevator and provide
> > a place where he could hide and goof off. We know the space was used
> > as a Smoker's Nook because an empty Viceroy cigarette package and
> > several cigarette butts we found there.
>
>
>
> What's your source that these items were found inside your "nook"?
>
Photos of Studebaker and Mongomery emerging from TSBD with paper book
wrapper, empty Viceroy package, and Dr Pepper bottle.....plus testimony
about what was found in the Smokers Nook.
>
> >
> > The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
> > impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
> > from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
> > obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
> > details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
> > immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
> > wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
> > give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
>
>
> What glimpse did LHO give us?
He told us that he saw the rifle in Mr Truly's office just 48 hours
prior to the murder...
He told us the B.Y. photo they showed him was a fake..... and it was
because... they showed him 133c, and he knew the photo he had created
was CE 133A )
He said he was just a Patsy......
If Oswald had been guilty there would have been no need to fabricate
evidence against him as the DPD did.
Walt
>
>
> >
> > Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
And your source that it was grounds for termination of employment,
other than an assumption?
>
>
> >
> > What's your source?
> >
> >
> >
> > >The slacker placed
> > > the boxes to form a barrier between the stairs and elevator and provide
> > > a place where he could hide and goof off. We know the space was used
> > > as a Smoker's Nook because an empty Viceroy cigarette package and
> > > several cigarette butts we found there.
> >
> >
> >
> > What's your source that these items were found inside your "nook"?
> >
> Photos of Studebaker and Mongomery emerging from TSBD with paper book
> wrapper, empty Viceroy package, and Dr Pepper bottle.....plus testimony
> about what was found in the Smokers Nook.
It's Montgomery and Johnsons who come out with those items. And just
because the Beers and Allen photos show them coming out with them
doesn't mean they were found "in" the "nook". You're making an
assumption based on nothing at all. In fact, DPD crime lab photos show
the Dr. Pepper bottle was found west of your "nook", not in it.
So, again, what's your source that these items were found inside your
"nook".
> >
> > >
> > > The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
> > > impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
> > > from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
> > > obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
> > > details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
> > > immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
> > > wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
> > > give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
> >
> >
> > What glimpse did LHO give us?
>
> He told us that he saw the rifle in Mr Truly's office just 48 hours
> prior to the murder...
He said he saw Mr. Truly looking at a rifle. This was the rifle that
Warren Castor bought and brought into the building to show his
co-workers.
> He told us the B.Y. photo they showed him was a fake..... and it was
> because... they showed him 133c, and he knew the photo he had created
> was CE 133A )
What's your source that they showed him CE 133C? How do you know this
to be fact?
Yiour claim is that LHO created CE 133A?
> He said he was just a Patsy......
And....?
David Von Pein
Wrong. Groden proposes the likelihood that no shots (out of up to TEN,
btw) came from the SN. Zero. Pages 20-40 of TKOAP. Go look it up.
Perhaps he's changed his tune since TKOAP in '93...but his "0-of-10
from the SN" is right there in B&W in his book.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So far as I know Groden has always accepted that some shot was fired from the sniper's nest. The only researcher who does not accept that is Lifton, and his followers." <<<
>
> Wrong. Groden proposes the likelihood that no shots (out of up to TEN,
> btw) came from the SN. Zero. Pages 20-40 of TKOAP. Go look it up.
>
No. Do you know Bob personally? Of course not. I do. I have talked to
him many times. He has always considered that at least one shot came
from the sniper's nest.
> Perhaps he's changed his tune since TKOAP in '93...but his "0-of-10
dcwi...@netscape.net
I'm so far off the mark, why get upset? Why not let me self-desctruct?
Apparently, because I won't, because I'm not that far off, or you
wouldn't invent names for me, David. Now, sing with me the tune, How
Many Rifles Were Photographed That Day? Answer: none. You were
worried for me all for nothing. And like I said practically no one
even *saw* the rifle on the west, let alone took a picture of it. Only
one of Tague's group maybe saw the end of that rifle (see quote).
And, lest we forget Jerry Ford, he was the one who cut Bob Jackson
off in mid-sentence when the latter was getting into what he was doing
on the grass, where Patrolman Hill was radioing re a rifle in the
"second window from the end" (see original post). We never found out
the name of Hill's witness, but we know that Jackson was (a) in the
area), & (b) saw a rifle at a window which, amazingly, he didn't get a
picture of. Or, perhaps, he did get a picture, but the rifle was on
the *5th* floor. Thanks partly to Ford, we'll never know....
dw
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You mean the place that Fritz dumped the hulls in?" <<<
>
> Oh why don't you shut the fuck up, Don-Kook.
>
> Your credibility (what was left) has been dealt a knockout blow (by
> yourself) via your latest crazy hunk of nonsense regarding "The Big Fix
> On The TSBD Upper Floors".
>
> You buried yourself with that shit. You might as well bow out now.
>
> And now you seem to be holding hands with Walt "No Shots From The Nest"
> Kook -- which means you're even further into insanity-land.
>
> You must think the Patsy-Framers actually risked being spotted with
> MULTIPLE RIFLES on the upper TSBD floors AT THE SAME TIME....because we
> KNOW there was a rifle in the 6th-Floor Nest, because both Bob Jackson
> and Tom Dillard were prompted to TAKE A PICTURE of that window within
> seconds of the last shot being fired (and testified to the effect they
> saw a rifle barrel sticking out of the SIXTH-floor window).
>
But, oddly, no picture of the *rifle*. Gee, I wonder why?
Walt
Check the records dumbass..... You'll find that Detectives Montgomery
and Johnson said the "evidence" they were carrying was from the S.N.
What kind of a numbskull would think that Montgomery and Johnson merely
picked up some trash and carried it outside in a manner that indicates
they didn't want to destroy any information that "trash" contained.
Aren't you just a little embarrassed to show your stupidity? ( or is it
simply dishonesty?)
>
> So, again, what's your source that these items were found inside your
> "nook".
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
> > > > impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
> > > > from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
> > > > obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
> > > > details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
> > > > immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
> > > > wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
> > > > give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
> > >
> > >
> > > What glimpse did LHO give us?
> >
> > He told us that he saw the rifle in Mr Truly's office just 48 hours
> > prior to the murder...
>
>
> He said he saw Mr. Truly looking at a rifle. This was the rifle that
> Warren Castor bought and brought into the building to show his
> co-workers.
>
Check the Fritz notes which were scribbled during the interrogation of
Oswald. Fritz scribbled Oswald's responses to his questions. When
they displayed the rifle to Oswald and asked him if he'd ever seen the
gun before...Oswald replied: "yes, I saw it and two other rifles in Mr.
Truley's office the day before yesterday".
>
>
> > He told us the B.Y. photo they showed him was a fake..... and it was
> > because... they showed him 133c, and he knew the photo he had created
> > was CE 133A )
>
>
> What's your source that they showed him CE 133C? How do you know this
> to be fact?
Which BY photos were in the hands of the DPD at the time Oswald was
being questioned?
Which BY photo was removed from the list and hidden from the Warren
Commission and the public for 12 years after the "investigation"?
Why would the DPD commit a felony and obstruct justice by withholding
evidence? Could it be because they peed their pants when Oswald
immediately spotted fakery in the photo they showed him?
>
> Yiour claim is that LHO created CE 133A?
Yes, Oswald created CE 133A.....The ONE and ONLY Back Yard photo that
he created.
He signed and gave a copy of that photo to G. De Morhrenschildt at the
time they were cooking up a staged attempt on General Walker's life.
Walt
David Von Pein
Probably because Oswald wasn't waving it out the SN window like a flag
after he had just used it to fire three shots, one of which hit the
President in the head.
Maybe that's the reason. Just a hunch anyway.
David Von Pein
And does that make your "TWO GUNS BEING WAVED OUT TWO DIFFERENT
5th-FLOOR WINDOWS" one-patsy plot any WISER and less-risky a plot from
a pre-planning standpoint?
IOW...It was okay to frame a lone patsy by waving around two guns (one
of them being waved around from the WRONG window DELIBERATELY, so that
people WOULD be able to see it!!) just because the dumbbell plotters
thought that probably nobody would see or film the west-end "real"
rifle?
Is that it?
One more thought......
Geesh.
(I have a feeling that perhaps Don Willis is really an LNer in
disguise, whose latest crazy CT theory was written out just to get a
reaction from people. Because, lacking that kind of "ruse" explanation,
I can't believe someone would actually WANT to be embarrassed by the
type of nutsville theory he has purported.)
David Von Pein
Yes, he is. And you should know why.
Because MASS COERCION of witnesses by the Warren Commission would have
been positively the STUPIDEST move the WC could have made IF they had been
on a "Lone Assassin At All Costs" mission.
Because to think that ALL of these various witnesses that CTers think were
actually strong-armed and manhandled to great extremes by the WC/Feds
would ALL take the "manhandling truth" to their graves without telling a
soul about how they were each strong-armed to tell one blatant lie after
another....is just loopy.
If the WC had really been on an LN Mission, they might have truncated or
excised some of those boys' testimonies in the record, or just not called
them at all to testify. But to strong-arm them the way many CTers think
occurred is utter suicide for the WC.
I'm not saying that the "truncation" of the witnesses' words would be a
good thing to have leak out either (IF the WC had been on an LN Mission,
which, of course, they weren't, and David Belin's book is a good way to
know they weren't....but I suppose we can't trust his book either...nope,
he was one of the WC bad guys...oops).
But a few snippings of testimonies would be far better for the "Evil WC"
than to go about literally putting false words into MANY different
witnesses' mouths. And I literally cannot believe that ANYONE with a brain
could buy into such a notion of widespread witness coercion.
It just goes to show how far down the silly path some CTers will go in
order to inject conspiracy into this case.
Frankly....it stinks!
Thank God for authors and CS&L-possessors like Vincent T. Bugliosi!
A V.B. Fresh-Air Break........
"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald
killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." --
VB
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB
"{Bugliosi's JFK} book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic
evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail
and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud
upon the American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the
evidence, and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on
this American nightmare. At last we know what really happened." -- W.W.
Norton & Co. (1998/2006)
David Von Pein
the sniper's nest." <<<
Gee, that's mighty big of him, huh? And it's STILL ridiculous to purport
just ONE shot from there, given the evidence saying he's dead-wrong.
And, btw, that's NOT what his OWN BOOK says on Pages 20-40. His "most
likely" scenario is "0-of-8" or "0-of-10" shots from the SN. Like it or
not, that's what resides in his own 1993 book.
If he's changed his tune since '93, fine. Of course, it's likely he would
change his tune...because that TKOAP scenario is laughable at best.
dcwi...@netscape.net
I don't think he's that much of a fool. What's he gonna do with the
contradictions in their various statements & testimony? What's he gonna
make of *Norman*'s story re why he thot shooting was coming from above,
changing, from Got Hit By Concrete Slabs, to Heard Hulls Hitting da Floor?
Go Vince!
dw
PS My guess is, he won't even mention them, not unless he picks out a
few things & doesn't mention others
dcwi...@netscape.net
We have to put the story in the headline, since you won't admit it. You're
self-destructing, by not even addressing issues re your fave witnesses....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
I think O knew about CIA assassinations in Central America in the 50s, &
got enuf "insurance" to get him out of the depository & to the surprise in
the Texas Theatre, where, yes, he was pretty obviously meant to be shot
"defending" himself....
dw
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Is Norman really a credible witness...?" <<<
>
>
>Yes, he is. And you should know why.
>
>Because MASS COERCION of witnesses by the Warren Commission would have
>been positively the STUPIDEST move the WC could have made IF they had been
>on a "Lone Assassin At All Costs" mission.
I haven't seen anybody claim massive "coercion" ... I certainly
haven't. But it is clear that some witnesses, like Norman, had stories
that evolved.
Riddle me this .... having just heard a rifle cycle 3 times right over
his head, and having just heard the ping of 3 casings hit the floor
right over his head, when Norman *finally* left the building after
having run 1st to the west end of the 5th floor to look out the
window, and then gone down to the 4th floor for a few minutes, when he
did go outside with Jarman and they spoke to a cop who was with
Brennan and Brennan had pointed them out as having been in the window
below rthe shooter ... WHY didnt Norman (or Jarman for that matter)
tell the cop they KNEW 3 shots had come from the windown directly
above them because Norman had heard the rifle being cycled and the
casings pinging to the floor?
Got even one plausible explanation?
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "I'm hoping he goes with Jarman next..." <<<
>
>And, naturally, everything Junior had to say was pure shit, per you
>CTers, right?
>
>Geez-Louise, what a tribe.
You're your own "Geez Louise" tribe here.<g> I didn't say any such
thing about Jarman. Making assumptions is never a good idea.
>
>Are you gonna call Vince B. a liar when he supports every bit of
>Norman's and Williams' and Jarman's and Brennan's testimony?
There you go assuming again ... about Bugliosi this time.
Oh, by the way .... do you KNOW where Jarman testified he thought the
shots he heard came from?
It would seem that you don't.<g>
Scurry, scurry!
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Personally, when we see these proclamations, they usually have been
gleaned from some book ... all the relevant documents have not been
read and inconsistencies or conflicts noted.
Now huffing & puffing about Jarman ... one wouldn't think he knows
where Jarman testified he thought the shots he heard came from given
the way he's carried on about CTs. I don't think he knows - but I
expect he'll now scurry to find out.<BG>
Barb :-)
>
>dw
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
No, that's not the reason. Because someone *was* waving a rifle out
the east-corner window on the 5th floor. "Like a flag", indeed. You
hit it on the nose, you rascal. How did at least two witnesses pick
out Williams as the shooter? One--Euins. Two--Hill's "2nd window from
the end" 12:37 witness. A rifle was being wielded rather
conspicuously, & on the *5th* floor. The "2nd window" on the 6th was
closed; Euins' "colored man" could not have been on the 6th floor.
Thanks for helping make my case, David!
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Like I said practically no one even *saw* the rifle on the west, let alone took a picture of it." <<<
>
> And does that make your "TWO GUNS BEING WAVED OUT TWO DIFFERENT
> 5th-FLOOR WINDOWS" one-patsy plot any WISER and less-risky a plot from
> a pre-planning standpoint?
>
> IOW...It was okay to frame a lone patsy by waving around two guns
You're putting words in my post. Waving *one* rifle; concealing
another....
(one
> of them being waved around from the WRONG window DELIBERATELY, so that
> people WOULD be able to see it!!)
As I noted, the 5th-floor/6th-floor similarities were being exploited.
If Norman & Jarman had gotten to their respective windows in time, the
lone Williams would not have initially been fingered as the shooter (as
he was, by at least 2 witnesses)--anyone who had seen a rifle at a top
corner window there would have had to conclude (when confronted by
Jarman/Williams/Norman poking their noses in the air, several seconds
after the shooting) that the rifle must have been on the floor
above.... Note how Edwards was re-educated into putting his man up one
floor, to the sixth. And Brennan was, too--he insisted that the
shooter's window was wide open....
dw
just because the dumbbell plotters
> thought that probably nobody would see or film the west-end "real"
> rifle?
>
> Is that it?
>
> One more thought......
>
> Geesh.
>
> (I have a feeling that perhaps Don Willis is really an LNer in
> disguise
Gad! Maybe I am--I've got Oswald as a key player in the conspiracy....
dw
David Von Pein
That's an excellent question, Barb.
And we can also ask Tom Dillard and Bob Jackson and Mal Couch and Jim
Underwood (esp. Jackson, who saw a rifle being withdrawn into the SN
window) WHY on this Earth they didn't run over to a cop (any cop would
do) and yell "Get up to that window now! I just saw a rifle there! Seal
this building fast!"
Fact is -- Human behavior and reactions sometimes have no rhyme or
(logical) reason. But these things are not necessarily related to
"lies" or "coercion" or whatever other hinky label you want to slap on
it.
Bob Jackson could have saved J.D. Tippit's life for certain if he had
done as I suggested above and rushed to a cop and exclaimed that he had
PERSONALLY SEEN a rifle in a window of the Depository. The police would
certainly have sealed the building in a heartbeat if Jackson had done
that.
So, it seems to me that my Robert H. Jackson scenario is identical in
every way to your inquiry re. Harold Norman and why he didn't do that
very same basic thing (i.e., tell a policeman what he knew about a
killer in the TSBD within minutes of the shooting).
Other people in the same boat as Jackson, Dillard, Norman, et al, were
-- Amos Euins (who saw a "pipe" in the 6th-Floor window), Arnold
Rowland (who saw a man with a rifle on the 6th Floor shortly before the
shooting), and Barbara Rowland (who was told by husband Arnold about
what Arnold knew re. a man with a rifle on the 6th Floor).
Are all of these people I have just mentioned supposedly guilty of
having stories that "evolved" over time -- i.e., are they telling tales
out of school in some fashion, in your view?
If not....what's the difference between Harold Norman and Arnold
Rowland....or between Norman and photographer Bob Jackson?
David Von Pein
I've been fully aware that James Jarman told the WC that he originally
thought the shots (all of them) came "from below" and to his "left".
But Jarman is also on record saying that even though he initially
thought the shots came from outside the building, he changed his
opinion just minutes later while the three men were still on the 5th
Floor, when he said this to the WC (is this just a "routine" or a sham
or an act of some kind by Jarman?).....
JARMAN -- "After we had ran down to this last window on the west side
of the building, and we was discussing it. And then after I got to
thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought about
that, also. And so I told Hank, I say, "That shot probably did come
from upstairs, up over us," and Hank said, "I know it did, because I
could hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the cartridges drop
on the floor." And I told him there we better get the hell from up
here. [sic] .... He {Howard Brennan} ran up to the police officer and
was telling him about the man sticking a gun out the window. And I
heard him telling the officer that. And I told him that I thought the
shots came from inside, too."
I think it's also interesting to note that the shooting itself isn't
even MENTIONED in Jarman's 11/23/63 affidavit. Make of that what you
will.....
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
Walt
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 22:50:41 -0500, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Is Norman really a credible witness...?" <<<
> >
> >
> >Yes, he is. And you should know why.
> >
> >Because MASS COERCION of witnesses by the Warren Commission would have
> >been positively the STUPIDEST move the WC could have made IF they had been
> >on a "Lone Assassin At All Costs" mission.
>
> I haven't seen anybody claim massive "coercion" ... I certainly
> haven't. But it is clear that some witnesses, like Norman, had stories
> that evolved.
>
> Riddle me this .... having just heard a rifle cycle 3 times right over
> his head, and having just heard the ping of 3 casings hit the floor
> right over his head, when Norman *finally* left the building after
> having run 1st to the west end of the 5th floor to look out the
> window, and then gone down to the 4th floor for a few minutes, when he
> did go outside with Jarman and they spoke to a cop who was with
> Brennan and Brennan had pointed them out as having been in the window
> below rthe shooter ...
You are making the elementary error that many others have made.
Brennan said he saw Norman, Williams, and Jarman looking out a window
on the fifth floor. He said the window was directly beneath the window
where he had seen the gunman BEFORE the motorcade arrived. He did NOT
say the gunman was firing from that window.
Walt
David Von Pein
You're not REALLY silly enough to think that Norman's testimony is
actually even NEEDED (at all) to prop up the "LN/3-SHOTS-FROM-THE-SN"
position...are you?
The fact that Norman's account isn't really even needed to convict the
obvious killer named Oswald (esp. since, and obviously, Norman couldn't
SEE Oswald firing a rifle above him) is a big hint as to why we can
KNOW that Norman's testimony has not been "coerced". Why coerce a
superfluous witness?
That seems about as silly as the CTer-believed fairy tale that has some
goofy plotters WANTING to "fake" additional photos of Oswald in the
Neely St. backyard, even though those CTers will even admit that they
think ONE REAL PHOTO showing the same thing really does exist!
Furthermore, why do CTers insist on thinking that no witness could
POSSIBLY show a little backbone and resist the temptation to be
"coerced" by those evil Govt. bigwigs?
Per CTers, Brennan and Norman and Williams and Jarman (and God knows
how many more people) were all strong-armed to tell a WC-invented tale.
Where's the proof that ANY of this coercion took place? You've got no
proof of it...at all. And you know you don't.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "You thought Norman was some big trump card..." <<<
First of all, I have not claimed "coercion" so quit trying to heap
your straw at my door. Achoo!
Second, I have posted many many times that I don't know why LNs keep
pulling out any of the 5th floor guys to prop up their lone deranger
Oswald beliefs because none of these three guys SAW ANYthing .... but
there are plenty of people in DP who DID and who reported seeing a
rifle in the window.
So given that we seem to agree on that (now that the Norman trail has
been posted<g>), that these 3 guys are unnecessary .... then why are
YOU the latest LN to drag one of them out, dust him off and not only
bring him up as some sort of evidence to your lone deranger LHO ...
but YOU labeled him as
"HAROLD NORMAN: KEY ASSASSINATION WITNESS."
You seem to be doing a lot of sideways shuffling )now you call him
superfluous<g>) away from the guy you proclaimed as a "KEY WITNESS"
when the documentary trail of his story got posted. But you're no
Charles Durning, it's too little too late.
ROTFL.
Barb :-)
>
Todd W. Vaughan
You first claimed it was "Studebaker and Mongomery emerging from TSBD".
I corrected you, telling you it was Montgomery and Johnson.
You now use my correction, and call me a dumbass.
You're an idiot Walt.
>said the "evidence" they were carrying was from the S.N.<
LOL!
The Warren Commission didn't show them the Beers or Allen photographs
and ask, "Hey guys, that stuff you're carrying, where did you find it
all?"
You're lying, Walt.
Here's what Montgomery said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
found:
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
And here's what Johnson said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
found:
"Now over to the right, which would be back toward the west of the
window, there was a lunch sack--a brown paper bag--and some remnants of
fried chicken, and a pop bottle.>
So it was not, as you claim, found in the shipers nest.
> What kind of a numbskull would think that Montgomery and Johnson merely
> picked up some trash and carried it outside in a manner that indicates
> they didn't want to destroy any information that "trash" contained.
> Aren't you just a little embarrassed to show your stupidity? ( or is it
> simply dishonesty?)
It's clear who is being stupid here.
Let me explain.
The issue we are discussing is not whether or not the items they are
carrying were valid pieces of evidence, but rather whether or not those
items were all found within the snipers nest, as you claim.
That you would imply otherwise speaks volumes about your lack of
integrety.
>
>
>
> >
> > So, again, what's your source that these items were found inside your
> > "nook".
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The person who carelessly planted the shells didn't recognize the
> > > > > impossibility of firing a rifle ( in the manner described by the W.C.)
> > > > > from that site. He also didn't know that the Lincoln and JFK would
> > > > > obscured by the trees across. He probably wasn't overly concerned about
> > > > > details because he thought that the Patsy would be shot and killed
> > > > > immediately which would have made it an open and shut case. Oswald
> > > > > wasn't killed immediately in the TSBD, and he lived long enough to to
> > > > > give us a glimpse of the conspiracy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What glimpse did LHO give us?
> > >
> > > He told us that he saw the rifle in Mr Truly's office just 48 hours
> > > prior to the murder...
> >
> >
> > He said he saw Mr. Truly looking at a rifle. This was the rifle that
> > Warren Castor bought and brought into the building to show his
> > co-workers.
> >
> Check the Fritz notes which were scribbled during the interrogation of
> Oswald. Fritz scribbled Oswald's responses to his questions. When
> they displayed the rifle to Oswald and asked him if he'd ever seen the
> gun before...Oswald replied: "yes, I saw it and two other rifles in Mr.
> Truley's office the day before yesterday".
You're a liar Walt.
The notes, located at http://www.jfk-info.com/notes1.htm, say the
following:
"Didn't own rifle saw
One at Blg M. Tru + 2 others"
Why do you lie?
>
> >
> >
> > > He told us the B.Y. photo they showed him was a fake..... and it was
> > > because... they showed him 133c, and he knew the photo he had created
> > > was CE 133A )
> >
> >
> > What's your source that they showed him CE 133C? How do you know this
> > to be fact?
>
> Which BY photos were in the hands of the DPD at the time Oswald was
> being questioned?
> Which BY photo was removed from the list and hidden from the Warren
> Commission and the public for 12 years after the "investigation"?
> Why would the DPD commit a felony and obstruct justice by withholding
> evidence? Could it be because they peed their pants when Oswald
> immediately spotted fakery in the photo they showed him?
Again I ask, what's your source that they showed him CE 133C? How do
you know this
to be fact?
Your reply above did not address that.
>
>
> >
> > Yiour claim is that LHO created CE 133A?
>
> Yes, Oswald created CE 133A.....The ONE and ONLY Back Yard photo that
> he created.
> He signed and gave a copy of that photo to G. De Morhrenschildt at the
> time they were cooking up a staged attempt on General Walker's life.
And your evidence of this is what?
David Von Pein
One--Euins. Two--Hill's "2nd window from the end" 12:37 witness. A rifle
Only a CTer like you would take those early
BEFORE-ANYTHING-WAS-KNOWN-FOR-CERTAIN reports and run for the conspiracy
goal line and then spike the ball and do a dance in the endzone and claim
you've solved the case based on sketchy reports that occurred a mere SEVEN
MINUTES after the fatal shot struck JFK's brain.
In a word -- Unbelievable.
>>> "Thanks for helping make my case, David!" <<<
No problem. Any time. Just say when.*
* = (Does he really think I've "helped" his "case"? Really? Truly? Can he
BE that dense?)
BTW, Don....What about Bob Jackson's "Rifle On The SIXTH Floor" account?
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You thought Norman was some big trump card..." <<<
>
>
> You're not REALLY silly enough to think that Norman's testimony is
> actually even NEEDED (at all) to prop up the "LN/3-SHOTS-FROM-THE-SN"
> position...are you?
amazing no ones testimony re the smokers nest is needed....
Von Pain, a damn ham sandwich would of convicted LHO in Dallas,
unfortunately for you, there's not much 'actual' evidence to support
that...
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "You thought Norman was some big trump card..." <<<
>
>
> You're not REALLY silly enough to think that Norman's testimony is
> actually even NEEDED (at all) to prop up the "LN/3-SHOTS-FROM-THE-SN"
> position...are you?
amazing no ones testimony re the smokers nest is needed....
Von Pain, a damn ham sandwich would of convicted LHO in Dallas,
unfortunately for you, there's not much 'actual' evidence to support
that...
> The fact that Norman's account isn't really even needed to convict the
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "WHY didnt Norman (or Jarman for that matter) tell the cop they KNEW 3 shots had come from the window directly above them because Norman had heard the rifle being cycled and the casings pinging to the floor?" <<<
>
>
> That's an excellent question, Barb.
>
> And we can also ask Tom Dillard and Bob Jackson and Mal Couch and Jim
> Underwood (esp. Jackson, who saw a rifle being withdrawn into the SN
> window) WHY on this Earth they didn't run over to a cop (any cop would
> do) and yell "Get up to that window now! I just saw a rifle there! Seal
> this building fast!"
>
> Fact is -- Human behavior and reactions sometimes have no rhyme or
> (logical) reason. But these things are not necessarily related to
> "lies" or "coercion" or whatever other hinky label you want to slap on
> it.
>
> Bob Jackson could have saved J.D. Tippit's life for certain if he had
> done as I suggested above and rushed to a cop and exclaimed that he had
> PERSONALLY SEEN a rifle in a window of the Depository. The police would
> certainly have sealed the building in a heartbeat if Jackson had done
> that.
>
That makes absolutely no sense. We assume you think Oswald was the
shooter, but you forget that Oswald was stopped by a policeman who had his
gun drawn on him because HE thought the shots came from the TSBD and was
looking for the shooter there, but this cop let Oswald go. Your point
would have to be that Baker could have prevented the Tippit killing by
shooting Oswald and killing him right then and there.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "He {Groden} has always considered that at least one shot came from
> the sniper's nest." <<<
>
> Gee, that's mighty big of him, huh? And it's STILL ridiculous to purport
> just ONE shot from there, given the evidence saying he's dead-wrong.
>
And in case you haven't noticed it, I disagree with him and point to the
physical evidence showing three shots from the TSBD. But I will continue
to object to the WC defenders misrepresenting the views of any
conspiracy believers even when I don't buy their particular theories myself.
> And, btw, that's NOT what his OWN BOOK says on Pages 20-40. His "most
> likely" scenario is "0-of-8" or "0-of-10" shots from the SN. Like it or
> not, that's what resides in his own 1993 book.
>
Where do those quotes come from? Show me the page. They come from
detractors like you, not from Groden.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Is Norman really a credible witness...?" <<<
>
>
> Yes, he is. And you should know why.
>
> Because MASS COERCION of witnesses by the Warren Commission would have
> been positively the STUPIDEST move the WC could have made IF they had been
> on a "Lone Assassin At All Costs" mission.
>
And who says that the WC is not capable of making the stupidest move?
Cops do it all the time when they try to frame black man for a murder
committed by a white man. That does not stop them from making the same
stupid move over and over again.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "WHY didnt Norman (or Jarman for that matter) tell the cop they KNEW 3 shots had come from the window directly above them because Norman had heard the rifle being cycled and the casings pinging to the floor?" <<<
>
>
>That's an excellent question, Barb.
>
>And we can also ask Tom Dillard and Bob Jackson and Mal Couch and Jim
>Underwood (esp. Jackson, who saw a rifle being withdrawn into the SN
>window) WHY on this Earth they didn't run over to a cop (any cop would
>do) and yell "Get up to that window now! I just saw a rifle there! Seal
>this building fast!"
>
>Fact is -- Human behavior and reactions sometimes have no rhyme or
>(logical) reason. But these things are not necessarily related to
>"lies" or "coercion" or whatever other hinky label you want to slap on
>it.
You're the one who keeps using the hinky labels and trying to make it
sound like I've used them. :-)
>
>Bob Jackson could have saved J.D. Tippit's life for certain if he had
>done as I suggested above and rushed to a cop and exclaimed that he had
>PERSONALLY SEEN a rifle in a window of the Depository. The police would
>certainly have sealed the building in a heartbeat if Jackson had done
>that.
IYO.
>
>So, it seems to me that my Robert H. Jackson scenario is identical in
>every way to your inquiry re. Harold Norman and why he didn't do that
>very same basic thing (i.e., tell a policeman what he knew about a
>killer in the TSBD within minutes of the shooting).
No it's not. Because Jarman and Norman actually had a conversation
with a policeman and Brennan .... and all Jarman said was that he
thought the shots came from inside the building too.
That makes it quite different.
>
>Other people in the same boat as Jackson, Dillard, Norman, et al, were
>-- Amos Euins (who saw a "pipe" in the 6th-Floor window), Arnold
>Rowland (who saw a man with a rifle on the 6th Floor shortly before the
>shooting), and Barbara Rowland (who was told by husband Arnold about
>what Arnold knew re. a man with a rifle on the 6th Floor).
>
>Are all of these people I have just mentioned supposedly guilty of
>having stories that "evolved" over time -- i.e., are they telling tales
>out of school in some fashion, in your view?
Lots of people saw ... and reported ... having seen a rifle sticking
out of the window and/or a man with a rifle in the window. I don't
quite understand the dance you're doing here. None of them were in the
presence of a policeman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and
failed to report what they'd seen/heard.
>
>If not....what's the difference between Harold Norman and Arnold
>Rowland....or between Norman and photographer Bob Jackson?
See above. It's not a subtle difference.
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>Barb,
>
>I've been fully aware that James Jarman told the WC that he originally
>thought the shots (all of them) came "from below" and to his "left".
>
>But Jarman is also on record saying that even though he initially
>thought the shots came from outside the building, he changed his
>opinion just minutes later while the three men were still on the 5th
>Floor, when he said this to the WC (is this just a "routine" or a sham
>or an act of some kind by Jarman?).....
No, he was quite honest ... he said what HIS personal immediate
impression had been, and then related that he changed his mind when
talking to Williams and Norman ... and because of what Norman said and
because of the dust in Williams' hair. That doesn't change what his
personal impression was at the time ... nor does him changing his mind
because of what Norman told him in any way bolster Norman. Not
surprising to me that he would believe his friend. IF that part of the
conversation actually took place there at that time. It doesn't quite
make sense that he would have merely told the cop and Brennan outside
that he thought the shots came from somewhere inside the building too
and not relate something akin to "yeah, I KNOW they came from inside
the building right over our heads, my friend here even heard the bolt
being worked and shells falling to the floor."
>
>JARMAN -- "After we had ran down to this last window on the west side
>of the building, and we was discussing it. And then after I got to
>thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought about
>that, also. And so I told Hank, I say, "That shot probably did come
>from upstairs, up over us," and Hank said, "I know it did, because I
>could hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the cartridges drop
>on the floor." And I told him there we better get the hell from up
>here. [sic] .... He {Howard Brennan} ran up to the police officer and
>was telling him about the man sticking a gun out the window. And I
>heard him telling the officer that. And I told him that I thought the
>shots came from inside, too."
>
>I think it's also interesting to note that the shooting itself isn't
>even MENTIONED in Jarman's 11/23/63 affidavit. Make of that what you
>will.....
>
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
His isn't the only one. One does wonder why he didn't interject
something of his knowledge of the shooting at that time. :-)
Barb :-)
>
Walt
Yes you are correct....I made an error. That you would make a big
deal out of an unimportant error reveals how egotistical and petty you
are.
>
> You're an idiot Walt.
>
>
>
>
> >said the "evidence" they were carrying was from the S.N.<
>
>
> LOL!
>
> The Warren Commission didn't show them the Beers or Allen photographs
> and ask, "Hey guys, that stuff you're carrying, where did you find it
> all?"
>
> You're lying, Walt.
Are there reporters with pencils and note books confronting Montgomery
and Johnson in the photos? Do you think the reports were asking them
where they got their hair cut?.... or do you think the reporters were
inquiring about the items they were carrying in a manner that indicates
it's evidence that that they don't want contaminated?
>
> Here's what Montgomery said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
> found:
>
> Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
> Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
That's not the same Dr.Peper bottle......the One the they carried from
the TSBD that was found in the S.N. was discarded when they found out
it didn't have Oswald's prints on it.
There are photos that were taken by reporters inside the TSBD... AFTER
...Montgomery and Johnson left which show the Dr Pepper bottle you are
refering to still there.
>
> And here's what Johnson said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
> found:
>
> "Now over to the right, which would be back toward the west of the
> window, there was a lunch sack--a brown paper bag--and some remnants of
> fried chicken, and a pop bottle.>
>
> So it was not, as you claim, found in the shipers nest.
>
>
>
> > What kind of a numbskull would think that Montgomery and Johnson merely
> > picked up some trash and carried it outside in a manner that indicates
> > they didn't want to destroy any information that "trash" contained.
> > Aren't you just a little embarrassed to show your stupidity? ( or is it
> > simply dishonesty?)
>
>
>
> It's clear who is being stupid here.
It sure is!
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "WHY didnt Norman (or Jarman for that matter) tell the cop they KNEW 3 shots had come from the window directly above them because Norman had heard the rifle being cycled and the casings pinging to the floor?" <<<
>
>
> That's an excellent question, Barb.
>
> And we can also ask Tom Dillard and Bob Jackson and Mal Couch and Jim
> Underwood (esp. Jackson, who saw a rifle being withdrawn into the SN
> window) WHY on this Earth they didn't run over to a cop (any cop would
> do) and yell "Get up to that window now! I just saw a rifle there! Seal
> this building fast!"
>
> Fact is -- Human behavior and reactions sometimes have no rhyme or
> (logical) reason. But these things are not necessarily related to
> "lies" or "coercion" or whatever other hinky label you want to slap on
> it.
>
> Bob Jackson could have saved J.D. Tippit's life for certain if he had
> done as I suggested above and rushed to a cop and exclaimed that he had
> PERSONALLY SEEN a rifle in a window of the Depository. The police would
> certainly have sealed the building in a heartbeat if Jackson had done
> that.
>
exactly what happened, tho it got only 1 of the 2 results which you
thot were "certain": In fact, Jackson *did* rush to a cop. How do I
know? There's a list of witnesses interviewed by the DPD (v19p517): A
certain Sgt WG Jenning(s) talked to Jackson ("who is now at Parkland
Hospital"), or to a fellow officer who talked to Jackson, who said that
he, Jackson, saw "the rifle & the man that fired the shots as the shots
were fired". (As I recall, this differs a bit from his WC testimony.)
But if he went to a cop in Dealey, why is there no record of this on
the DPD radio? There is, in fact, I maintain: Jackson's testimony is
cut off by Gerald Ford as he, Jackson, sets down near the underpass,
where a patrolman was radioing in re several witnesses: "It's believed
that these shots came from [the TSBD]... upper R hand corner, at the
second window from the end". Patrolman Hill's other witnesses included
Tague & Brehm, but there's a vacancy for the "2nd window"-witness slot.
Hill prefaced his comments with, "Get some men up here to cover this
building, this TSBD". So, if Jackson *was* Hill's witness, Jackson was
indeed responsible for getting the building sealed off, circa 12:37-38!
Your hunch was right--Jackson's action got the thing sealed!
Unfortunately, Jackson's/Hill's power did not extend to Oak Cliff....
A further suggestion that there's a gaping gap in the Jackson story:
Dep Sheriff Lewis's list of witnesses from whom statements were taken
on 11/22/63 includes... "Bob Jackson Times Herald Reporter. Saw
Shooting" (v19p527) Jackson's statement has never been made public....
I'm glad my own research could confirm your suspicions!
Oh, yes, perhaps the reason that there was such a gap was "second"
window....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2007 10:01:29 -0500, "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>> "You thought Norman was some big trump card..." <<<
> >
> >
> >You're not REALLY silly enough to think that Norman's testimony is
> >actually even NEEDED (at all) to prop up the "LN/3-SHOTS-FROM-THE-SN"
> >position...are you?
> >
> >The fact that Norman's account isn't really even needed to convict the
> >obvious killer named Oswald (esp. since, and obviously, Norman couldn't
> >SEE Oswald firing a rifle above him) is a big hint as to why we can
> >KNOW that Norman's testimony has not been "coerced". Why coerce a
> >superfluous witness?
David, David! You're hilarious! Shot down in flames & still ignoring
the conflagration! Let's see, Norman is a "superfluous witness",
right. To whom? Not to you! What, that is, is the original title of
this thread? Hint: Rhymes with "Harold Norman: KEY Assassination
Witness"! Sounds like a riddle: How can a "key" assassination witness
also be a "superfluous" witness? Vince B's gonna throw you off his
team....
dw
PS I see that Barb, below, also spotted this little inconsistency
> >
> >That seems about as silly as the CTer-believed fairy tale that has some
> >goofy plotters WANTING to "fake" additional photos of Oswald in the
> >Neely St. backyard, even though those CTers will even admit that they
> >think ONE REAL PHOTO showing the same thing really does exist!
> >
> >Furthermore, why do CTers insist on thinking that no witness could
> >POSSIBLY show a little backbone and resist the temptation to be
> >"coerced" by those evil Govt. bigwigs?
Domingo Benavides, I think, showed tremendous strength in not going
along with the story being fabricated for him, for several months: He
did not make a (known) statement, give an interview, or say one word re
his role in Oak Cliff, until the hearings. He, finally, testified...
the month after his brother was shot dead.... Even the strongest aren't
impervious.
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Is Norman really a credible witness...?" <<<
>
>
> Yes, he is. And you should know why.
>
> Because MASS COERCION of witnesses by the Warren Commission would have
> been positively the STUPIDEST move the WC could have made IF they had been
> on a "Lone Assassin At All Costs" mission.
>
information, or had evidence withheld from them....
dw
> persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
> barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VB
>
> "{Bugliosi's JFK} book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic
> evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail
> and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "How did at least two witnesses pick out Williams as the shooter?
> One--Euins. Two--Hill's "2nd window from the end" 12:37 witness. A rifle
> was being wielded rather conspicuously, and on the *5th* floor." <<<
>
> Only a CTer like you would take those early
> BEFORE-ANYTHING-WAS-KNOWN-FOR-CERTAIN reports
It is certain, David, that 2 reporters heard Euins initially say that
the shooter was a "colored man". And it is certain that a witness told
Patrolman Hill about shots from the "2nd window". As noted in my
"Oswald: Patsy & Conspirator" post, I think both these witnesses were
*wrong*. But that's what they thought they saw. They thot Williams,
at that 2nd window, was the shooter....
dw
and run for the conspiracy
> goal line and then spike the ball and do a dance in the endzone and claim
> you've solved the case based on sketchy reports that occurred a mere SEVEN
> MINUTES after the fatal shot struck JFK's brain.
>
> In a word -- Unbelievable.
>
>
> >>> "Thanks for helping make my case, David!" <<<
>
> No problem. Any time. Just say when.*
>
> * = (Does he really think I've "helped" his "case"? Really? Truly? Can he
> BE that dense?)
>
> BTW, Don....What about Bob Jackson's "Rifle On The SIXTH Floor" account?
See my account of Jackson, elsewhere today, based on somewhat more
information than you apparently have....
dw
David Von Pein
Oh, well. I never said I was perfect.
<bg>
Happy CT Hunting.
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> Barb,
>
> I've been fully aware that James Jarman told the WC that he originally
> thought the shots (all of them) came "from below" and to his "left".
>
> But Jarman is also on record saying that even though he initially
> thought the shots came from outside the building, he changed his
> opinion just minutes later while the three men were still on the 5th
> Floor, when he said this to the WC (is this just a "routine" or a sham
> or an act of some kind by Jarman?).....
>
> JARMAN -- "After we had ran down to this last window on the west side
> of the building, and we was discussing it. And then after I got to
> thinking about all the debris on Bonnie Ray's head, and I thought about
> that, also. And so I told Hank, I say, "That shot probably did come
> from upstairs, up over us," and Hank said, "I know it did, because I
> could hear the action of the bolt, and I could hear the cartridges drop
> on the floor." And I told him there we better get the hell from up
> here. [sic] .... He {Howard Brennan} ran up to the police officer and
> was telling him about the man sticking a gun out the window. And I
> heard him telling the officer that. And I told him that I thought the
> shots came from inside, too."
>
*Norman*'s head. 2) Norman's debris-from-above sham (!) was replaced
by the bolt/cartridges sham. 3) Both Jarman & Williams testified,
under oath, that Jarman opened that west window, but a rather belated
photo revelation (three decades late)--Moorman #3--shows that the west
window was open at least 4 or 5 minutes before the trio supposedly ran
to the west side, & Jarman then supposedly opened the corner window!
Oh, yes, sure, Jarman & Williams could have misremembered, but the
evidence exposing their misremembering was withheld for some 30 years!
4) Some 80 DPD personnel testified before the WC, but not one recalled
hearing any witness say any such thing outside the TSBD, & neither
Jarman nor Norman said a thing about anything for a day or so. 5)
Brennan testified that he introduced N&J to SS Agent Sorrels, but
Sorrels could not confirm this.... Otherwise, this is a fine slice of
testimony! Way to go, Dave!
dw
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "You seem to be doing a lot of sideways shuffling (now you call him superfluous<g>) away from the guy you proclaimed as a "KEY WITNESS"." <<<
>
>Oh, well. I never said I was perfect.
>
><bg>
:-)
>
>Happy CT Hunting.
Truth hunting, With my Carcano. <g>
Barb :-)
>
aeffects
> > re Norman pointed out to you." <<<
> >
> > Norman's testimony is perfectly consistent with what even most CTers
> > believe (i.e., shots fired from the SN, by a rifle which was no doubt
> > ejecting cartridges as it was being fired).
> >
> > I find it interesting (but certainly not altogether surprising) when CTers
> > create "issues" (like this Norman stuff) in their attempt to muddy-up the
> > unmuddied
>
> "Unmuddied"! Where have you been the last 40 years? "Unmuddied" only in
> your head, which seems impervious to anything which might rock your Ark of
> Evidence.
>
> waters....even when the self-muddied waters created by the CTers
> > don't really advance their "case" for a multi-gun conspiracy
>
> David, David, I don't *need* "multi-gun"--at least, not the *firing* of
> more than one gun--for conspiracy. And Norman muddied things himself when
> he changed his story. Admit it--he's useless now, for your
von Pain has never, NEVER met a Lone Nut-JFK related scenario he
couldn't muddy-up
> dw
David Von Pein
Funny, though, that it comes as such a SURPRISE to you, huh? Especially
since you've constructed such a DETAILED fairy tale re. Arce as the
shooter and Williams as the freakin' dumbbell of ALL-TIME, deliberately
waving a non-shooting rifle out the window (and the WRONG SN window, no
less!!) SO THAT IT WILL BE NOTICED BY WITNESSES!*
* = And I guess the Negroes will just hope and pray that the witnesses
(that Williams WAS TRYING TO ATTRACT via his 5th-Floor rifle-waving)
didn't notice that the rifle-waving was coming from a FIFTH-story
window, instead of the one where they're gonna be sprinkling all the
evidence later on. Right, kook?
LOL.
And yet you had no idea what Jarman testified to in '64 it seems.
Just flyin' by the seat of your pants, I guess. As per the norm.
Oh well...kooks will be...kooks.
David Von Pein
If you give me a few years, maybe I could figure out what this silly
kook means by the above comment. As usual, he's spouting....kookshit!
And I see that Mr. Miller at the Simkin-Kook Forum must have retracted
his one nice comment he had for Healy-Kook from late Dec.
2006....because he's back in Healy-hating form again (looking good
too)......
"David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder
film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is
altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the
left side of your body or the right?" -- Bill "Photo Kook" Miller
~~~~~~~~
"Listen up little guy {i.e., Miller}....No one here or on any other
board needs you to reinforce the long held Lone Nut mantra: the
Zapruder film was NOT altered, you've spent your entire new found
career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO
shot and killed JFK, alone! We AREN'T fooled! Nor is it necessary to
delve into a long diatribe describing your unaltered faith to the CT
cause, no one believes you, Bill. hence, you're a lone nut dufus.
Your JFK related comments and illusionary moments of grandeur are
meaningless to me and many other's.
Now why don't you do something constructive and tell us what Groden had
to say about the Z-frame (170) I posted afew day's back? Can't you
Z-film experts do ANYTHING? Best guess the generation, you ole film
EXPERT, you!" -- Healy-Kook
~~~~~~~~~
Healy is striving for Super-Kook status by thinking that Miller-Kook is
an "LNer". Miller has always advocated a frontal shot hit JFK in the
head. For years. I guess Healy thinks Miller has gone through his
"Avulsed BOH Wound" crap just so he could end up looking like a fool
when his "LN Cover" was blown...is that it?
What a tribe.
David Von Pein
times over) re. what you think happened on 11/22, that's why he's a KEY
witness.
But if he didn't exist, Oswald's guilt would still have been proven via
the physical evidence itself. That's what makes him
also....superfluous.
Yes, I'll admit that a few of my posts re. Norman sound like they're at
odds with each other. But they really aren't.
And, anyhow, you know us kooky LNers! We're bound to put our feet in
our big mouths sooner or later. Right, Mr. "Arce Shot JFK" Willis??
(And Don, via that "Arce Did It" theory is ridiculing ME. Ain't that a
kick in the ol' cranium??! A kettle awaits!)
aeffects
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "{Mr. D. Von Pein, sir} has never, NEVER met a Lone Nut-JFK related scenario he couldn't muddy-up." <<<
>
> If you give me a few years, maybe I could figure out what this silly
> kook means by the above comment. As usual, he's spouting....kookshit!
Why do you incessent frauds continue to cut and paste?
Dance oh-sweet Gloria, D A N C E!
> And I see that Mr. Miller at the Simkin-Kook Forum must have retracted
> his one nice comment he had for Healy-Kook from late Dec.
> 2006....because he's back in Healy-hating form again (looking good
> too)......
Whose Miller? You mean that no-nothing film/photo expert who appeared
out of nowhere...at least you leave a trail when you spout nonsense....
> "David, you have taken a position that there is no proof the Zapruder
> film is altered and another that you believe the same Zapruder film is
> altered. Which half of you falls under the "lone nut dufuses" ... the
> left side of your body or the right?" -- Bill "Photo Kook" Miller
>
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> "Listen up little guy {i.e., Miller}....No one here or on any other
> board needs you to reinforce the long held Lone Nut mantra: the
> Zapruder film was NOT altered, you've spent your entire new found
> career reinforcing what the Warren Commission said 40+ years ago, LHO
> shot and killed JFK, alone! We AREN'T fooled! Nor is it necessary to
> delve into a long diatribe describing your unaltered faith to the CT
> cause, no one believes you, Bill. hence, you're a lone nut dufus.
>
> Your JFK related comments and illusionary moments of grandeur are
> meaningless to me and many other's.
>
> Now why don't you do something constructive and tell us what Groden had
> to say about the Z-frame (170) I posted afew day's back? Can't you
> Z-film experts do ANYTHING? Best guess the generation, you ole film
> EXPERT, you!" --
couldn't have said it better myself, hey wait a minute you Lone Neuter
beef-stick, I DID say it!
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> Healy is striving for Super-Kook status by thinking that Miller-Kook is
> an "LNer". Miller has always advocated a frontal shot hit JFK in the
> head.
charade is up, dufus....
For years. I guess Healy thinks Miller has gone through his
> "Avulsed BOH Wound" crap just so he could end up looking like a fool
> when his "LN Cover" was blown...is that it?
of course.... Lone Neuter's posing as CTer's regularlly fall on their
swords, only to reincarnate in another thread later the same day..... I
thought you knew how the game is played... You aren't Miller's alter
ego are you? He had one you know.... actually he has a bout 4 or 5 on
Simkin's board....
What's got you so worried about what is posted on Simkin's board....
just jump in, or were you banned from there....? (banned= common
occurance with Lone Neuter's)
> What a tribe.
what-a-maroon
David Von Pein
Out of nowhere?? He's been spouting his "Avulsed BOH Wound On The Film"
shit for years.
You must take kook pills (four a day prob'ly). Because, sans that
explanation, I can't imagine anyone being as kooky as you.
Todd W. Vaughan
You are constantly making errors and missrepresenting the facts in this
case.
>
>
> >
> > You're an idiot Walt.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >said the "evidence" they were carrying was from the S.N.<
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > The Warren Commission didn't show them the Beers or Allen photographs
> > and ask, "Hey guys, that stuff you're carrying, where did you find it
> > all?"
> >
> > You're lying, Walt.
>
> Are there reporters with pencils and note books confronting Montgomery
> and Johnson in the photos? Do you think the reports were asking them
> where they got their hair cut?.... or do you think the reporters were
> inquiring about the items they were carrying in a manner that indicates
> it's evidence that that they don't want contaminated?
There sure are.
Now, tell us all what those same notes say. And provide your source.
> >
> > Here's what Montgomery said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
> > found:
> >
> > Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
> > Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
>
> That's not the same Dr.Peper bottle......the One the they carried from
> the TSBD that was found in the S.N. was discarded when they found out
> it didn't have Oswald's prints on it.
That's nonsense.
DPD Crime Lab photographs show no Dr.Peper bottle in the snipers nest.
Period. The Tom Alyea film of the snipers nest also shows no Dr. Peper
bottle.
DPD Crime Lab photographs do show the Dr. Pepper bottle west of the
snipers nest. The Tom Alyea film shows Studebaker dusting this bottle,
in this same location, for fingerprints.
DPD Crime Lab photographs also show a 2nd Dr. Pepper that is on the
west end of the 6th floor where they were laying the new floor.
You don't know sqaut about the sixth floor evidence, Walt.
> There are photos that were taken by reporters inside the TSBD... AFTER
> ...Montgomery and Johnson left which show the Dr Pepper bottle you are
> refering to still there.
I've seen and collected many photographs of the 6th floor, during and
after the DPD Crime Lab work, published and unpublished. The Allen
photos show no such thing. The Beers photos show no such thing. The
Shulke photos show no such thing.
So, I'll ask.
Where can those photographs be found, Walt? What's your source?
>
>
> >
> > And here's what Johnson said about where the Dr. Pepper bottle was
> > found:
> >
> > "Now over to the right, which would be back toward the west of the
> > window, there was a lunch sack--a brown paper bag--and some remnants of
> > fried chicken, and a pop bottle.>
> >
> > So it was not, as you claim, found in the shipers nest.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What kind of a numbskull would think that Montgomery and Johnson merely
> > > picked up some trash and carried it outside in a manner that indicates
> > > they didn't want to destroy any information that "trash" contained.
> > > Aren't you just a little embarrassed to show your stupidity? ( or is it
> > > simply dishonesty?)
> >
> >
> >
> > It's clear who is being stupid here.
>
> It sure is!
Yep. I agree.
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> Harold Norman's testimony is KEY to proving you CTers wrong (several
> times over) re. what you think happened on 11/22, that's why he's a KEY
> witness.
>
> But if he didn't exist, Oswald's guilt would still have been proven via
> the physical evidence itself. That's what makes him
> also....superfluous.
Good! Then I trust that you won't be using him any more to prove that
bolt & casings sounds were coming from above him, now that that idea has
proven to be no more than an *understudy* to Norman's original story that
falling debris hit him from above. Excellent, Mr Renfield, excellent!
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> Harold Norman's testimony is KEY to proving you CTers wrong (several
> times over) re. what you think happened on 11/22, that's why he's a KEY
> witness.
>
> But if he didn't exist, Oswald's guilt would still have been proven via
> the physical evidence itself. That's what makes him
> also....superfluous.
Just a note to append to Barb's 1/1 post (from her 6/1/98 post) & my 1/2
post: The Warren Report pp70-71 devoted these two pages to Norman's It
Came from Above testimony, & also shows that Williams & Jarman were
implicated in these fictions, as the dust/debris circled around outside
the window, then inside, fell first on (only) Norman, then on (only)
Williams, & the bolt/casings sounds at first seemed unimportant, then by
12/4/63, took on mucho importance (& there, in Norman's SS statement, the
dust is only dust & doesn't seem to attack anyone). Well, of course, the
WR doesn't mention that none of the 3 thot Norman's bolt/casings story
interesting enuf to report for about 12 days. And it quotes *only* from
their testimony! That's one way to get witness "evidence"--ignore the
contradictions. David continues the WR's blinkered sort of analysis.
The bolt/casings/debris-from-6th-floor contradictions are just one more
indication that, conversely, there was NO shooting from the 6th floor.
Either DPD & SS were so eager to capitalize on 6th-floor Signs & Meaning,
that they accepted the words (at the hearings only) of NJW without
fact-checking, or DPD & SS put those ever-changing words into their
mouths. I lean towards the latter, based on the case of the
long-suppressed Moorman #3 & (uncropped) Powell slide, whose
three-decades-late publication exposed *another* facet of the NJW story as
phony--the run to the west side, where Jarman supposedly opened the end
window. Jarman & co. certainly had no power to suppress photographic
evidence, the better to bolster their fictions. The NJW story, then, was
not at all what it was officially supposed to have been, & in my "Oswald:
Patsy & Conspirator" post, I suggest what it really might have been.
Also, remember that Williams' son has a tape bequeathed him by his late
father, which he has said tells a tale closer to the truth....
dw
Anthony Marsh
Yes, and tell us whose fingerprints were found on the Dr. Pepper bottles
and what ever became of them.
charles wallace
above him?" This quote implies that Harold Norman conveyed this. It
appears to fit the facts since 3 spent hulls were found on the floor and
a live round was found in the firing chamber of the rifle. But the
truth of what happened is ignored, right?
David could you explain why Gerald Posner wrote in his book 'Case
Closed' that Harold Norman said that he heard "Boom, click-click, boom,
click-click, boom."? Now you might just want to say that Norman erred
and forgot to add the final 'click-click', but Norman was adamant for
many years that it was exactly what he heard.
Harold Norman has factual support for his account. Howard Brennan from
the street below says in his WC testimony that he saw the gunman fire
his last shot. He said the gunman after aiming and firing the last shot
slowly withdrew the rifle bringing it down and to the gunman's side. The
gunman then looked as if to be satisfied with the shots and then moved
out of sight being in no hurry.
Norman and his two co-workers heard no steps walking or running above
them after the shots. They also did not hear anyone on the wooden
staircase after the shots even though Norman had heard empty shells
hitting the floor after each 'click-click' of the rifle bolt's
operation.
David does it not bother you that five witnesses including Brennan
describe the gunman wearing light colored clothing but Oswald was not
described by anyone wearing a light colored sports shirt?
CCW
David Von Pein
Yes, Norman DID convey just that...precisely. Which is the reason I
emphasized the word "exactly" there. Norman conveyed that little
detail in 1986 at the LHO Mock Trial:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "How many {bullet shells} did you hear falling to
the floor?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "Three."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of
the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that
you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"
MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>>> "David, does it not bother you that five witnesses, including Brennan, describe the gunman wearing light-colored clothing, but Oswald was not described by anyone wearing a light-colored sports shirt?" <<<
Not nearly as much as it bothers me that you seem to be so willing to
allow a killer to walk free (in a sense) due to a total amount of
evidence (such as "clothing" or "footsteps" or "click-clicks") that
pales by comparison to the vast amount of stuff that's telling any
reasonable person examining this case that Lee Harvey Oswald was the
assassin of John F. Kennedy.
Plus -- Let me offer this explanation re. the clothing snafu that so
many of you CTers love to rely on and cling to in your relentless
efforts at "Oswald Exoneration".....
I personally have come to believe that it might have been very possible
that Oswald DID have on only a "light"-colored (white) shirt....his
T-shirt....during the actual shooting itself. He then could very easily
and quickly have put on his brown shirt AFTER he shot JFK. (Hence, a
possible reason as to why Officer Baker thought Oswald had on a
"jacket", due to the shirt being unbuttoned and untucked, because
Oswald didn't take the time to button it or tuck it in.)
That brown shirt might have been lying there in the SN by Oswald's side
as he performed the cowardly deed of shooting a U.S. President in the
back (and back of the head).
This theory re. the shirts does leave me with a tad bit of a snafu
myself (from my LN POV) -- in that there were FRESH fibers that matched
the brownish shirt of LHO's found under the butt plate of the rifle
after the assassination.
So, if my theory is an accurate one, it would mean that the shirt
fibers on the rifle were left there by Oswald at some time other than
during the assassination, or that the fibers really didn't come from
the brown Oswald "arrest shirt" at all, but merely were very similar.
Either is possible, of course; but hardly provable.
dcwi...@netscape.net
T shirt is probably right. Jarman told the FBI that O usually worked
in a T shirt, & left his overshirt or jacket downstairs on the first
floor. O would, that is, have wanted to be wearing what he was usually
wearing, upstairs, & picked up his overshirt on the way out....
dw
Walt
Even if your implausible and weak theory could be valid....You're still
stuck with trying to explain the WHITE trousers the Brennan saw on the
gunman. Brennan saw the gunman sitting on the window sill and saw him
from the hops to the top of his head at the time the gunman was aiming
the rifle out of the window. Brennan said the man's trousers were ..."a
shade LIGHTER than his dingy white shirt" . So the gunman had on a
white shirt and trousers, while Oswald was dressed in a dark colored
REDDISH BROWN shirt and DARK GRAY trousers .... But don't let the facts
get in yer way....We all know yer mind ( the little you have) is made
up.
Walt
>
> That brown shirt might have been lying there in the SN by Oswald's side
> as he performed the cowardly deed of shooting a U.S. President in the
> back (and back of the head).
>
> This theory re. the shirts does leave me with a tad bit of a snafu
> myself (from my LN POV) -- in that there were FRESH fibers that matched
> the brownish shirt of LHO's found under the butt plate of the rifle
> after the assassination.
>
> So, if my theory is an accurate one, it would mean that the shirt
> fibers on the rifle were left there by Oswald at some time other than
> during the assassination, or that the fibers really didn't come from
> the brown Oswald "arrest shirt" at all, but merely were very similar.
> Either is possible, of course; but hardly provable.
It's true the fibers were hardly solid evidence that Oswald killed
JFK....But that didn't stop the Warren Commission from acting is if it
it was a great piece of evidence.
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Ever hear of "misdirection", "distraction", etc? Or the old shell
> game. .... Maybe you can come up with a better explanation." <<<
>
> A better plan (by far)......
>
> Actually use the weapon you plan to FRAME YOUR PATSY WITH...and use it ON
> THE FLOOR WHERE YOU'LL BE PLANTING EVERY SCRAP OF EVIDENCE...instead of
> waving EXTRA guns out of NON-patsy-framing windows.
Good, good. But my post addresses one issue which always bothered me, as
a CTer: How do you (as a conspirator, if there ever was one anywhere)
keep absolute tabs on your patsy? If he's not shooting, or not *with* the
shooter... how do you keep him exactly where you want him during the
shooting? The best (only?) way: Have him be a shooter, or with the
shooter. Of course, LNers don't have to worry about such things....
dw
>
> I guess the plotters must have left their brains at home on 11/22. Either
> that or they forgot how to count to 6(th Floor).
>
> And I still can't believe how Mr. Willis manages to have the guts to
> continue to post here after spouting such an obviously-crazy theory re.
> Arce & Williams, et al.
>
> Don's got guts...I gotta give him that much. He's got no possible way of
> proving his crackpot plot...but he's got some 'nads alright.
Yeah, yeah, I know it sounds a little crazy. (Or a lot.) But the reports
coming out of Dealey were sometimes a little crazy. And were you not
aware that everyone was forgetting how to count that day? First police
radio reports had shooting from the 2nd, 4th &/or 5th floors, hulls found
on the 3rd floor, shots from the 2nd window, chiefs & sheriffs sending
their men to the railroad yards. Then, also, Euins clearly thought the
shooter was a fellow black person. Brennan testified he *ran* (he
sometimes ran, if it was urgent...) to a cop to say he saw the assassin;
but a photo in Trask shows Brennan just standing with onlookers, circa
12:34, not yet with the patrolman who testified he stayed with Brennan
every minute after Brennan ran up to him... circa 12:34. (My guess is B
just saw a rifle, wasn't sure it was actually being used to shoot, say, a
President, maybe it was just the SS: 2nd-degree urgency. Was it witness
Vergie Rachley, something like that, who said that B was talking to
*everyone* who would listen? But at what time?)
dw
David Von Pein
Ah, yes. I must have forgotten those rigid JFK Assassination CT-Kook
Rules. I.E., every single last discrepancy MUST be fully explained to
the everlasting satisfaction of CT-Kooks like you, or else (as my
astute and ultra-sensible LN cohort, Bud, has said many times, and
rightly so) -- the CTer in question gets to believe kooky
conspiracy-slanted shit.
Sorry, kook, but the "white pants" thing doesn't get Oswald off the
hook. You might think it does. But the totality of evidence is quite
clear....and it's spelling out Oswald's name across the DP sky for all
to read.
What TSBD workers were wearing "white pants" on 11/22, btw? Anybody?
Please find this info, Walt. After all, you seem to be in the
"EVERYTHING *MUST* BE KNOWN FOR AN OPINION TO BE REACHED" clique. So
this MUST be ultra-important info.
And if there were no TSBD workers wearing white pants that day, that
must mean that some stranger (in an all-white, Good Humor-like outfit)
was in the TSBD that Friday....even though nobody saw any "strangers"
on the upper TSBD floors that day.
But, maybe they just forgot about Mr. Good Humor Man with a rifle on
the sixth floor.
Related testimony (circa 1986):
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "At any time on the morning of the assassination
did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book Depository Building?"
HAROLD NORMAN -- "No sir."
>>> "We all know {your} mind is made up." <<<
Yep. You finally got something right. My mind is made up. No question
about that. If only for the reason that by being in the LN camp I'm
located on the exact opposite side of the fence that you're on. That,
right there, might just be a good enough reason all by itself for
anyone to abandon the ranks of "CTer".
Todd W. Vaughan
Are you asking me, Tony, or Walt?
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Ever hear of "misdirection", "distraction", etc? Or the old shell
>> game. .... Maybe you can come up with a better explanation." <<<
>>
>> A better plan (by far)......
>>
>> Actually use the weapon you plan to FRAME YOUR PATSY WITH...and use it ON
>> THE FLOOR WHERE YOU'LL BE PLANTING EVERY SCRAP OF EVIDENCE...instead of
>> waving EXTRA guns out of NON-patsy-framing windows.
>
> Good, good. But my post addresses one issue which always bothered me, as
> a CTer: How do you (as a conspirator, if there ever was one anywhere)
> keep absolute tabs on your patsy? If he's not shooting, or not *with* the
> shooter... how do you keep him exactly where you want him during the
> shooting? The best (only?) way: Have him be a shooter, or with the
> shooter. Of course, LNers don't have to worry about such things....
>
Or have him be the lookout man, guarding the elevators and stairs to
prevent anyone from coming up to the sixth floor.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>> "Ever hear of "misdirection", "distraction", etc? Or the old shell
> >> game. .... Maybe you can come up with a better explanation." <<<
> >>
> >> A better plan (by far)......
> >>
> >> Actually use the weapon you plan to FRAME YOUR PATSY WITH...and use it ON
> >> THE FLOOR WHERE YOU'LL BE PLANTING EVERY SCRAP OF EVIDENCE...instead of
> >> waving EXTRA guns out of NON-patsy-framing windows.
> >
> > Good, good. But my post addresses one issue which always bothered me, as
> > a CTer: How do you (as a conspirator, if there ever was one anywhere)
> > keep absolute tabs on your patsy? If he's not shooting, or not *with* the
> > shooter... how do you keep him exactly where you want him during the
> > shooting? The best (only?) way: Have him be a shooter, or with the
> > shooter. Of course, LNers don't have to worry about such things....
> >
>
> Or have him be the lookout man, guarding the elevators and stairs to
> prevent anyone from coming up to the sixth floor.
>
Actually, I like that positioning of O better than my own, which presents
too many problems. However, then, who *was* the decoy in the end window?
The person being seen just *before* 12:30 was so obvious that witnesses
who saw him actually forgot about him, for a time, *then* went to
authorities because he stood out in their memories' minds' eye--I mean,
Edwards & Fischer. (Mrs Walther's story is similar.) This person was
*trying* to be seen, & he had to have looked *something* like Oswald, &
been a TSBD employee, most likely.... But he could not, I think, have been
on the *6th* floor: A photo of him, solo, there, on the 6th, would have
cooked his granny goose.
dw
Robert
Be that as it may, in Norman's 11/26 statement, there is no reference to hearing "hulls" or the bolt being worked. That is highly suspicious. Moreover, he did not specify that the latter two shots also sounded like they came from the floor above. In fact, the first bullet sounded like it was from the 6th floor, but not necessarily directly above his window. The way he says he ran to look to the west suggests that he was not clear about the source of the second two shots.
Bonnie Ray Williams said he heard 2 shots in his November 22nd, and 23rd interviews, only claiming to have heard 3 shots in his March '64 interviews.
James Jarman claimed in his 11.22.63 interview that he was outside down on the street during the assassination! For some reason, people overlook this discrepancy. Perhaps he was scared to admit his true whereabouts, but this apparent falsehood is disturbing nonetheless. Then before the Warren Commission, he finally spoke of three shots, but quite interestingly, like so many, he said the third shot followed "right behind the second one". More importantly, he said people starting falling down after the second one, but no one fell down until the head shot! Re this latter problem, my own take is that either there were two assassins, or else the gun being fired (6th floor or whatever) did a double explosion. One can youtube such double explosions from the carcano. One also finds that the carcano can be rapid fired, so this aspect does not prove two assassins.
Just to be clear, I do not have a set position on conspiracy/lone gunmen. I only note problems with the evidence and testimonies as they are.
> =================================================
>
> Does anyone truly think that JFK assassination witness Harold Norman
> was full of shit when he claimed to hear the rifle's bolt being worked
> directly over his head on 11/22/63 during the shooting....and hearing
> exactly THREE shots fired from over his head...and hearing exactly
> THREE spent hulls hitting the floor above him?
>
> Mr. Norman's testimony in all of the above "three-shot" regards
> provides an additional (and, IMO, very important) layer of evidence
> leading toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder (coupled
> with all the other ballistics, witness, fingerprint, and fiber evidence
> that back up LHO's guilt as well).
>
> Because if Norman was dead-wrong about everything he heard going on
> directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Book Depository, it
> would certainly be an incredible coincidence that he would be WRONG,
> but in such a "THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR"
> fashion....which is a scenario that is backed up by lots of other
> evidence (and witnesses), besides just Mr. Norman.
>
> And if conspiracists want to paint Norman as yet another in a series of
> "liars" or "WC shills" after the assassination, it only adds one more
> ludicrous and unproven "He Was Lying" allegation to the already-silly
> length of such a list that has been created by some CTers over the
> years since 1963.
>
> And it's interesting to note in the Warren Report, that all seven
> Warren Commissioners (in three separate re-creations of bullet shells
> hitting the floor above Norman's position on the TSBD's 5th Floor) were
> each easily able to hear the cartridge cases hitting the floor.
>
> In addition, there's also the test that was conducted by WC counsel
> member David W. Belin. To quote Belin directly on this matter.....
>
> "We scheduled the testimony of Harold Norman on March 24, 1964. Before
> he testified, we wanted to interview him on the fifth floor of the TSBD
> Building and check whether these sounds {of the rifle shells hitting
> the floor and of the rifle's bolt being worked by the gunman} could be
> heard.
>
> We had with us the equipment necessary to make the test. A Secret
> Service agent with the bolt action rifle stood with Joe Ball in the
> southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. I
> stayed with Harold Norman on the fifth floor directly below.
>
> Before giving the signal to conduct the experiment, I waited until a
> train passed on the nearby railroad overpass so there would be plenty
> of street noise. In addition, at that time, several large trucks were
> moving down Elm Street. I then yelled to have the test begin.
>
> I smiled, for I really did not expect to hear anything. Then, with
> remarkable clarity, I could hear the thump as a cartridge case hit the
> floor. There were two more thumps as the two other cartridge cases hit
> the floor above me.
>
> The Secret Service agent then worked the bolt of the rifle back and
> forth, and this too could be heard with clarity.
>
> When we re-assembled after the re-enactment, I said to my colleague,
> 'Joe, if I had not heard it myself, I would never have believed it'."
> -- David Belin; Pages 139-140 of Belin's 1973 book "November 22, 1963:
> You Are The Jury"
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> Now, either Harold Norman was an amazing liar, or somebody fired three
> shots from just above Norman's 5th-Floor Depository position on
> 11/22/63 (with three shells hitting the floor too).*
>
> * = And Norman confirmed he did hear precisely THREE shells/("hulls")
> hitting the plywood floor directly above him during the shooting. He
> confirmed this fact in 1986 when he was being questioned about the
> matter by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi during the television Docu-Trial "On
> Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".
>
> Here is some of the verbatim testimony given by Harold Norman at that
> TV Docu-Trial in 1986:
>
> VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"
>
> HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired
> directly above you?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound
> of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming
> from directly above you?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call
> them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle
> being pushed back and forward."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Three."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."
>
> MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more question....at any time on the morning of the
>
> MR. NORMAN -- "No sir."
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> Many CTers think the three shells were "planted" in the Sniper's Nest
> after the shooting. But Norman heard the shells dropping to the floor
> DURING THE SHOOTING, not several seconds AFTER the gunfire ceased.
>
> Do some CTers think that the plotters had a guy standing in the SN
> dropping shells to the floor IN REAL TIME during the actual 8 seconds
> when the assassination was taking place on November 22nd?
>
> "Real Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting"! Now THAT'S Patsy-Framing
> organization and efficiency, for damn sure! :)
>
> So, if Norman's not a liar (and there's absolutely no reason to think
> he is), then three shots WERE definitely fired from that southeast
> corner window of the Book Depository's sixth floor. Period. Which is
> something that very few conspiracy theorists I've ever talked to
> actually believe occurred that day.
>
> And -- Harold Norman's testimony, all by itself, makes CTer Robert
> Groden's crazy "No Shots Were Likely Fired From The SN Window At All"
> theory look even MORE ludicrous than it already is.
>
> David Von Pein
> July 2006
> January 2007
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> RELATED LINK:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/0adb8a8343e87c1c/5747139b309594cd?&hl=en#5747139b309594cd
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~