Witnesses to gunshots from the TSBD

[claviger]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Ten corroborating witnesses as to shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD
building.

Outside:
H L BRENNAN
MRS E CABELL
M O COUCH
J N CRAWFORD
A L EUINS
R H JACKSON
J R WORRELL

Inside:
J E JARMAN JR
H NORMAN
B R WILLIAMS

[Anthony Marsh]

Which one actually saw the shots being fired?

[claviger]

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. Only Brennan.

[David Von Pein]

Via Tony Marsh's "Only Brennan" comment above, Marsh apparently thinks it
makes a lot of sense to consider the idea that somebody was sticking a
useless rifle out of the sixth-floor window and didn't fire any shots at
all with that rifle.

It's another (of hundreds) of instances where a CTer will isolate
something separately and then fail to piece it together to make the
"whole".

So, Marsh (and other conspiracy theorists) will isolate the information
about ONLY Howard Brennan being a witness to a rifle actually being FIRED
from the southeast corner of the Depository's sixth floor.

But Marsh also knows, of course, that three spent bullet casings were
found directly under that SAME window where other witnesses (besides
Brennan) saw a gun. And Oswald's rifle was found on that same sixth floor.

Therefore, could a defense lawyer actually expect a reasonable jury to buy
this argument:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just because Mr. Euins and Mr.
Jackson and Mr. Couch and Mr. Worrell saw a rifle sticking out of an
upper-story window of the Book Depository, and just because physical
evidence of a gunman was found on the sixth floor, this doesn't mean that
you, the jury in this case, have to buy into the notion that ANYONE AT ALL
was firing a rifle from that sixth-floor window. All the prosecution has
got is Howard Brennan! And we all know what a liar that guy is, right? In
other words, you must ALWAYS be willing to ISOLATE every witness, and you
must never, NEVER, be willing to put these isolated pieces of evidence
back together to form a cohesive whole. Never do that! For, if you do,
you'll be playing right into the hands of the prosecution...and into the
hands of your own common sense. And I know none of you jurors would want
that. I rest my case."

[/Perry Mason off.]

CTers love to do this same silly "isolation" trick with the Tippit
witnesses too, as they place each of those witnesses into their own
separate isolation booth, while failing to see the illogic of their
arguments.

Since we know beyond ANY doubt that Lee Oswald was, indeed, travelling on
foot near Tenth & Patton (with a gun in his hands) on 11/22/63.....

And since we also know beyond all doubt that the gun that Lee Oswald had
on him when he was arrested was, in fact, the gun that murdered J.D.
Tippit.....

Then it becomes quite silly for conspiracy theorists to "isolate" a
witness like, say, Ted Callaway -- with the CTers always saying that
Callaway cannot really be used as a "Tippit Murder Witness", because
Callaway didn't actually see anyone firing any bullets at Tippit.

But this is just incredibly silly thinking, due to the OTHER evidence that
does exist (in conjunction with Callaway's observations) which prove
beyond all possible doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's murderer.

And I'm still scratching my head and wondering how in this wide world a
person with obviously above-average intelligence the likes of the late Mr.
Harold Weisberg could possibly be silly enough to make a statement like
this one (which is a direct, verbatim quote from Weisberg's mouth):

"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the
sixth floor." -- Harold Weisberg

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2011 11:35 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Via Tony Marsh's "Only Brennan" comment above, Marsh apparently thinks it
> makes a lot of sense to consider the idea that somebody was sticking a
> useless rifle out of the sixth-floor window and didn't fire any shots at
> all with that rifle.
>

No one stuck a rifle outside the window. The acoustical evidence proves
that exactly three shots were fired from INSIDE the sniper's nest.

> It's another (of hundreds) of instances where a CTer will isolate
> something separately and then fail to piece it together to make the
> "whole".
>
> So, Marsh (and other conspiracy theorists) will isolate the information
> about ONLY Howard Brennan being a witness to a rifle actually being FIRED
> from the southeast corner of the Depository's sixth floor.
>

I don't mind if you have only one witness who says he actually saw the
rifle firing a shot. Fine with me. But don't misrepresent the historical
evidence in this case and claim that it was 20 witnesses, or everyone in
Dealey Plaza. Just stick to the facts.

> But Marsh also knows, of course, that three spent bullet casings were
> found directly under that SAME window where other witnesses (besides
> Brennan) saw a gun. And Oswald's rifle was found on that same sixth floor.
>

So what? I have never argued that his rifle was not fired during the
assassination. My point remains that you can not prove that it was
Oswald firing those shots.

> Therefore, could a defense lawyer actually expect a reasonable jury to buy
> this argument:
>
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just because Mr. Euins and Mr.
> Jackson and Mr. Couch and Mr. Worrell saw a rifle sticking out of an
> upper-story window of the Book Depository, and just because physical
> evidence of a gunman was found on the sixth floor, this doesn't mean that
> you, the jury in this case, have to buy into the notion that ANYONE AT ALL
> was firing a rifle from that sixth-floor window. All the prosecution has
> got is Howard Brennan! And we all know what a liar that guy is, right? In

We all know what a bad witness he was and we know that he refused to
identify Oswald the first time, until the cops took him aside and had a
little talk with him. That might come out in court. Of course the Zapruder
film would not come out in court which shows that he was looking at the
limo at the time of the shots, not up at the TSBD.

> other words, you must ALWAYS be willing to ISOLATE every witness, and you

I guess you've never been in court. A defense attorney who does not
attack the credibility of the state's star witness should be disbarred.

> must never, NEVER, be willing to put these isolated pieces of evidence
> back together to form a cohesive whole. Never do that! For, if you do,
> you'll be playing right into the hands of the prosecution...and into the
> hands of your own common sense. And I know none of you jurors would want
> that. I rest my case."
>
> [/Perry Mason off.]
>

Mark Lane, you mean.
If the gun don't fit, you must acquit.

>
> CTers love to do this same silly "isolation" trick with the Tippit
> witnesses too, as they place each of those witnesses into their own
> separate isolation booth, while failing to see the illogic of their
> arguments.
>

Yeah, some CTers do. So what? Some WC defenders claim that the proof that
Oswald shot the President is that he left his wedding ring on the dresser.
Or some WC defenders claim tha the proof that it was an International
Communist Conspiracy was when Oswald raised his right fist to give the
Communist salute. Ask Jean about that. But you never dare to ridicule
them.

> Since we know beyond ANY doubt that Lee Oswald was, indeed, travelling on

> foot near Tenth& Patton (with a gun in his hands) on 11/22/63.....
>

Prove that Oswald had the gun in both hands then. Show me the photograph
or film. You assume a lot because you can't prove anything.

> And since we also know beyond all doubt that the gun that Lee Oswald had
> on him when he was arrested was, in fact, the gun that murdered J.D.
> Tippit.....
>

Yeah, so what?

> Then it becomes quite silly for conspiracy theorists to "isolate" a
> witness like, say, Ted Callaway -- with the CTers always saying that
> Callaway cannot really be used as a "Tippit Murder Witness", because
> Callaway didn't actually see anyone firing any bullets at Tippit.
>

Well, gee, maybe they also say that no witness actually saw the bullets
in flight. So what?

> But this is just incredibly silly thinking, due to the OTHER evidence that
> does exist (in conjunction with Callaway's observations) which prove
> beyond all possible doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's murderer.
>

Fun, but never rely on one witness.

> And I'm still scratching my head and wondering how in this wide world a
> person with obviously above-average intelligence the likes of the late Mr.
> Harold Weisberg could possibly be silly enough to make a statement like
> this one (which is a direct, verbatim quote from Weisberg's mouth):
>
> "I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the
> sixth floor." -- Harold Weisberg
>

Didn't he say that BEFORE the HSCA?

The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came from the
sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the grassy knoll
shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be bashing us
conspiracy believers over the head with it every day, every hour that now
we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed JFK.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
>

[claviger]

Anthony,

> >> Which one actually saw the shots being fired?
>
> > Outside:
> > H L BRENNAN
> > MRS E CABELL
> > M O COUCH
> > J N CRAWFORD
> > A L EUINS
> > R H JACKSON
> > J R WORRELL
>
> Wrong. Only Brennan.

Wrong! Brennan, Euins, Worrell. Three strikes you're out.

[Jean Davison]

Brennan said that when he first looked up at the TSBD, Oswald
was taking aim for his last shot. Zapruder had already panned past
him by then, so there's no contradiction.

>
> > other words, you must ALWAYS be willing to ISOLATE every witness, and you
>
> I guess you've never been in court. A defense attorney who does not
> attack the credibility of the state's star witness should be disbarred.
>
> > must never, NEVER, be willing to put these isolated pieces of evidence
> > back together to form a cohesive whole. Never do that! For, if you do,
> > you'll be playing right into the hands of the prosecution...and into the
> > hands of your own common sense. And I know none of you jurors would want
> > that. I rest my case."
>
> > [/Perry Mason off.]
>
> Mark Lane, you mean.
> If the gun don't fit, you must acquit.
>
>
>
> > CTers love to do this same silly "isolation" trick with the Tippit
> > witnesses too, as they place each of those witnesses into their own
> > separate isolation booth, while failing to see the illogic of their
> > arguments.
>
> Yeah, some CTers do. So what? Some WC defenders claim that the proof that
> Oswald shot the President is that he left his wedding ring on the dresser.

Please name anyone who has said that, Tony. The ring is
only one of many pieces of circumstantial evidence, not proof. And
please don't say "Google it." That's a dodge.

> Or some WC defenders claim tha the proof that it was an International
> Communist Conspiracy was when Oswald raised his right fist to give the
> Communist salute. Ask Jean about that. But you never dare to ridicule
> them.

Yes, ask me! I've never claimed there was an international
communist conspiracy or that Oswald's raised fist was a communist
salute.

More irony -- today you posted this:

QUOTE:
>>
No, not what I said at all. Let me repeat this for about the
millionth
time. Never presume to tell me what I agree to. Never. All you do is
misinterpret and misrepresent what I have said.
>>
UNQUOTE

That's exactly what I'm saying to you, Tony.

And I'm not "attacking" you any more than you're
"attacking" me. This is a debate forum, right? Anyway, relax. Have a
nice day.

Jean

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came from the sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the grassy knoll shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be bashing us conspiracy believers over the head with it every day, every hour that now we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed JFK." <<<

No. Not at all. No reasonable-thinking LNer would be doing any such
silly thing. And that's because the acoustical evidence -- ALL of it,
and not just the "4th Shot" -- is pure junk and has been destroyed by
the NAS study in 1982.

Obviously, if the limo was long gone from the scene of the crime when
the acoustical "impulse patterns" were being recorded on the Dictabelt
at DPD (and the limousine was, indeed, long gone from Dealey Plaza at
that time), then NONE of those impulse patterns can possibly be
gunshots -- not the "4th shot" or the three impulse patterns that you
claim prove that 3 shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest.

All of that acoustics stuff is garbage. I.E., all of those "impulse
patterns" had to have caused by something other than gunshots--because
all of the gunshots that were fired that day had already been fired by
the time those impulse sounds were being recorded. (Or do you want to
theorize that even sixty seconds AFTER the assassination there were
still some gunmen firing away at JFK, even though his car was on
Stemmons Freeway by that time?)

Why in the world are you still propping up ANY portion of the HSCA's
acoustical nightmare, Tony? Just for the fun of hanging on to a
discredited theory? It's bizarre that someone would do that. (Oops,
check that--you're a conspiracy theorist. And that's what they do
every day--hang on to valueless and worthless information and
theories. My mistake.)

And I just love Robert Groden's recent claims (via a Black Op Radio
appearance a month or two ago) about how he now thinks that up to
FIFTEEN shots were fired in Dealey Plaza.

Now, just put that "15-shot" theory right next to the "Dictabelt"
theory -- and what we'd have to believe is that there must have been
15 separate acoustical fingerprints of gunshots on that Dictabelt.

And, to put Groden's 15-shot theory into another context, we'd have to
believe that EVERY witness in Dealey got the number of shots wrong.
Even A.J. Millican, who heard "only" eight. (Do "silenced" shots leave
the same "acoustical fingerprint" as audible ones?)

Groden must actually think that the approx. 75% of the earwitnesses
who heard exactly THREE shots must have somehow (inexplicably) missed
hearing the other TWELVE gunshots. TWELVE shots missed being heard!

Yeah, sure Bob.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/11/2011 8:55 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came from the sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the grassy knoll shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be bashing us conspiracy believers over the head with it every day, every hour that now we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed JFK."<<<
>
> No. Not at all. No reasonable-thinking LNer would be doing any such
> silly thing. And that's because the acoustical evidence -- ALL of it,
> and not just the "4th Shot" -- is pure junk and has been destroyed by
> the NAS study in 1982.
>

Only because it said conspiracy. If it had only shown three shots from
the sniper's nest the DOJ would not have any cause to review it.

> Obviously, if the limo was long gone from the scene of the crime when
> the acoustical "impulse patterns" were being recorded on the Dictabelt
> at DPD (and the limousine was, indeed, long gone from Dealey Plaza at
> that time), then NONE of those impulse patterns can possibly be
> gunshots -- not the "4th shot" or the three impulse patterns that you
> claim prove that 3 shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest.
>

Blah, blah, blah. Why don't you repeat the same thing 1,000 times and
try to impress everyone with what a tough guy you are?

> All of that acoustics stuff is garbage. I.E., all of those "impulse
> patterns" had to have caused by something other than gunshots--because
> all of the gunshots that were fired that day had already been fired by

Then show me what caused them and prove it.

> the time those impulse sounds were being recorded. (Or do you want to
> theorize that even sixty seconds AFTER the assassination there were
> still some gunmen firing away at JFK, even though his car was on
> Stemmons Freeway by that time?)
>

No, don't be silly.

[Anthony Marsh]

Euins did not say that he saw the rifle being fired. Worrel did not say
that he saw the rifle being fired.
You went from 20 down to 12 and now you're down to three.
There is something wrong with your theory when you change it every week.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Then show me what caused them and prove it." <<<

I haven't the foggiest idea what caused the impulse patterns on the
Dictabelt (just static, probably), but it couldn't possibly have been
gunshots -- for two very good reasons:

1.) The sounds were recorded at about 12:31, not 12:30.

and

2.) There's no motorcycle anywhere near the corner of Elm & Houston at
the time of the first shot -- which is proven by taking just one look
at Robert Hughes' film.

Case (really) closed.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/12/2011 12:39 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Then show me what caused them and prove it."<<<
>
> I haven't the foggiest idea what caused the impulse patterns on the
> Dictabelt (just static, probably), but it couldn't possibly have been
> gunshots -- for two very good reasons:
>
> 1.) The sounds were recorded at about 12:31, not 12:30.
>
> and
>

> 2.) There's no motorcycle anywhere near the corner of Elm& Houston at

> the time of the first shot -- which is proven by taking just one look
> at Robert Hughes' film.
>

No. Dale Myers lied. Look at the Dorman film.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 8:55 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>> "The HSCA acoustical tests proved that exactly three shots came
>>>>> from the sniper's nest. If they had not accidentally discovered the
>>>>> grassy knoll shot, each and every one of you WC defenders would be
>>>>> bashing us conspiracy believers over the head with it every day,
>>>>> every hour that now we have the scientific proof that Oswald killed
>>>>> JFK."<<<
>>
>> No. Not at all. No reasonable-thinking LNer would be doing any such
>> silly thing. And that's because the acoustical evidence -- ALL of it,
>> and not just the "4th Shot" -- is pure junk and has been destroyed by
>> the NAS study in 1982.
>>
>
> Only because it said conspiracy. If it had only shown three shots from
> the sniper's nest the DOJ would not have any cause to review it.

That's right. It would only have corroborated what was shown by *all*
the other evidence. Since the HSCA endorsed this one anomalous finding
that was not backed up by *any* other evidence of conspiracy, further
inquiry was indeed warranted.
/sm

[claviger]

Does it ever occur to you that we can look up witness testimony to see
what they actually said, not what you pretend they said?

[Anthony Marsh]

Did it ever occur to you that I have quoted those witness testimonies
many times verbatim and you have never quoted them verbatim?