Was Harold Norman The Shooter In The Texas School Book Depository?

[19e...@mail.com]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber

Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!

[donald willis]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:08:26 PM UTC-7, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber
>
> Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!

No. I can go along with the narrator maintaining that no one shot from
the sixth floor, and that someone shot from the fifth floor, just below
the "nest" window. But how is he getting Jarman & Norman on the "dicta
phone" (I believe he used that term)? Does he mean on the DPD radio?
They'd have to be shouting out the window for that even to be a
possibility.

Norman seems to have been incommunicado until the Tuesday after the
assassination. I see that as a reluctance to go along with the story he
was being fed. If he were a shooter, or a fellow conspirator, he would
have forthrightly spoken up right away, on 11/22, and deflected attention
from himself.

dcw

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-4, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber
>
> Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!

No.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:08:26 PM UTC-4, 19e...@mail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber
>
> Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!

There were no conspirators, there was one shooter in the TSBD and his name
was Lee Harvey Oswald.

[19e...@mail.com]

The assassins had radios, walkie-talkies, using DPD channel 1. Probably
Jarman was operating the 5th floor window and Normal the rifle.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here's a analysis of the Hughes film. It shows a black man - presumably
Norman - on the fifth floor waving as JFK's limo passes by.

Where in this analysis is the shooter?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCp9cOannk

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/6/2018 11:08 PM, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber
>
> Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!
>

The CIA didn't care. The would use anybody.
Read what Dulles said.

[Mark]

Great post, Steve. Mark

[donald willis]

Yes, I know that's what Norman said, quite some time after the fact. But
that's not necessarily what is there. Indistinguishable. Look at the
Weaver Polaroid, taken a few minutes, apparently, before the shooting.
There actually seems to be a lot going on there. And Mrs. Walthers said
she saw two men up in "Norman"'s window, or at least on a floor below the
6th....

dcw

[InsideSparta]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 8:08:26 PM UTC-7, 19e...@mail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU95VGKxGpdxSvdD3ZZVu4w?view_as=subscriber
>
> Maybe the conspirators were equal opportunity employers!

It's idiotic claims like this that make LN's and any reasonable, sane
individuals sit back and laugh at the CT community. The guy who posted
this gem on Youtube used to go by the name "Saintly Oswald" and had his
account deleted from that site for making outrageous accusations like
Jacqueline Kennedy being a conspirator in the murder. I don't know which
is more disturbing and pathetic; the person that made that Youtube video,
or people that actually believe such nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

You guys aren't trying hard enough. You always give the kooks a loophole.
They can say that we can't see the third man in the shadows so he could
have been the shooter. You won't even tale three seconds to point out the
logistics of such a shot are impossible. Or point out that the acoustics
evidence proves that the 3 shots were fired from the 6th floor not the 5th
floor.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? They were not shooters.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Why don't you bring up aliens too? Anything to poison the well.
Despite your holier than thou attitude, your side is in the minority.
And you have your own stupid things to answer for. SBT.
Free Frank Warner. Are you proud of him? Are you defending all the lies
the WC told?

[InsideSparta]

Attaboy! Way to stand up for the CT's. The people that post silly theories
like Harold Norman being a shooter, or Jacquie being an accomplice, may be
fruitcakes, but, gosh darn it, they're your fruitcakes.

You know what poisons the well? Crazy, idiotic theories, with no credible
evidence whatsoever to support them. I'll compare the SBF, and the
evidence that supports it, over these types of theories any day of the
week. If that comes off as "holier than thou", the so be it.

[Mark]

Is the Hughes film a fake? Mark

[donald willis]

Glad you asked. This earlier post addressed the (apparent) two versions
of the Hughes:

It has come to my attention that there seems to be a problem with the
Hughes film similar to the problem found below with the Dillard wide-angle
photo. Many years ago, Harold Weisberg, too, found a problem with the
Hughes, in I believe "Whitewash". (I did not source the photocopy which I
took of a page in the volume, which I found at the Alameda (CA) library
while researching James Jarman Jr.'s early stay in the city. But it's
page 279.) For one thing, Weisberg noted that an "enlarged" frame from
the Hughes (reprinted there) seemed to show that Oswald was not visible in
the "nest" window, although the depository section of the Hughes was taken
only seconds before the shooting started. He also notes (more to my
point) that "those [witnesses] allegedly in three windows of the floor
below... were not [there] at the time they testified they were...."

There is, however, I think, a figure (or two) visible in the far east
fifth-floor half-window, as seen on page 279. This figure, or these
figures, are more visible in the approximately-half-size version of
apparently the same frame in Richard Trask's "Pictures of the Pain", page
272. For me, the crux here is a comparison of the "extreme close-up" of
the Hughes frame on page 272 with the Hughes frame on the page before and
the "blowups" of the Hughes in Groden's "The Killing of a President" on
page 207.The figure(s) in the far-east half-window are visible in all four
versions, in Weisberg, Trask, and Groden.

And the figure in Jarman's window is visible in the tiny Trask version on
page 271 (though this too is a blowup) and on page 207 of Groden. What's
most curious, however, is that the larger close-ups, on page 272 of Trask
(less than a half-inch wide by about a quarter-inch high) and 279 of
Weisberg (less than an inch wide by about a half-inch high) show NO ONE in
Jarman's window. No figure. Go figure.... The more-extreme close-ups
show less than the less-extreme close-ups.

This may mean that either (a) there are two distinct versions of the
Hughes: the Jarman and the without-Jarman: or that (b) Jarman ducked out
of the window for a second or two of the six-second sequence of the upper
windows.

Was Jarman an extra added to the Hughes? Is the figure or figures in the
end half-window Norman or... the shooter? Was Williams just not there or
was he simply blocked by that light pole?

dcw

[19e...@mail.com]

Actually, the kook who made that video, his account was deleted because he
posted a video of a girl catching a baseball in Las Vegas. By doing so, he
was guilty of "bullying," and his account was condemned for that grave
offense. A nameless woman catching a baseball...during a massacre. That's
enough for YouTube.

[donald willis]

Just looked at the Hughes film again (JFK Assassination Forum version) and
don't see any sign of anyone ducking in or out of Jarman's window. I may
be pre-disposed, but I now lean towards (a) There are two versions of the
Hughes out there, one doctored, featuring Jarman's image, one the
original, without Jarman....

dcw

[Mark]

Donald, I appreciate that you give straight answers. If the Hughes film
was altered these questions follow: Where? When? How?

Mark

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Don't you think it's possible that the quality of the film - or the
video/device that is showing it - is causing Jarman to "disappear"?

You think the "one" showing Jarman has been doctored? He was added? It's
not possible the other one is just poorer quality?

It's fascinating how some conspiracy people just jump to nefarious reasons
behind events. Never an innocent explanation.

[Anthony Marsh]

Dancing pixels?

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Who did it and why?

[donald willis]

All possible. But remember that on 11/23/63, Jarman made out an affidavit
in which he failed somehow to mention that he was on the fifth floor when
the motorcade went past. In this light, "doctoring" seems possible....

dcw

[donald willis]

Mark -- I have no direct answers to your questions. But if THAT doctoring
parallels the doctoring of the first major DPD-radio-log transcription,
which I know is fraudulent....

From Chris Scally's post "DPD Dictabelts--Chain of Possession" (3/31/97,
on the moderated version of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

DPD Sgt. Jim Bowles (to Gary Mack, in 1982): "It was the Secret Service
who 'took those blue belts [containing 'recordings of radio transmissions
at or about the time of the assassination of Pres. Kennedy']out of the DPD
building A FEW DAYS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION.... Bowles also told Mack that
he could not give any assurance that the belts which were returned were
the ones which left the possession of the DPD.... J. Lee Rankin, Warren
Commission General Counsel... was apparently unhappy with the
Henslee/Secret Service transcript from the previous December...."
(pp2,4)

Sgt.G.D. Henslee was the DPD's transcriber. It sounds as if the
inaccuracies of his transcription began with the Secret Service. I don't
think Bowles' suggestion of the possibility of switched belts (or, rather,
his admission that he couldn't vouch that they were the same belts) needs
following up on: The SS/Henslee merely transcribed incorrectly what was
on the belts, and it was this fraudulent transcription which was used at
the Commission hearings when questioning almost all DPD officers....

In sum: If the Hughes was doctored, I think it was the SS there, too, a
"few days after the assassination"....

dcw

[19e...@mail.com]

In the event that you really are asking me something, you can see the
video that got the Kook banned here, if you like
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mvbSROZbjKhc/ Some real kooks out there!
Thank god for YouTube censors!

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly questions.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's right. Everyone knows that the Watergate breakin was an accident.
Those guys were just looking for the mens room and got lost. Same with
9/11. Those planes just got lost in fog and were trying to land. Just like
the B-26 that flew into the Empire State building at the end of WWII. It
is not true that they were on a mission to shoot down King Kong.

Always cover up everything. Never admit any fact.

[donald willis]

So you're suggesting that even the Hughes with (apparently) Jarman's image
is NOT a picture of Jarman?? It's just pixels??

[Anthony Marsh]

The FIRST transriber. Then the SS rejected it and asked them to do a
better job with the exact words.

[donald willis]

a) There was one earlier, but very sketchy transcription, not sure of who
did it.

b) Actually, it seems as if the SS were the ones who wanted Henslee to
sign his name to their own (flawed) transcription. The SS had the belts
*before* Henslee got to it, as per Bowles.

dcw

[CAMPBE...@yahoo.com]

Was Harold Norman the shooter?

Please tell me you're kidding and that you don't actually think that! The
Hughes film hasn't been tampered with. You can plainly see one of the
three fith floor employees(Norman,Williams or Jarmon) waving as the limo
passes underneath them in the Hughes film. You can also see something
move,albeit a small movement in the snipers nest window. I'll post two
links,one from when Frontline examined the film where you can plainly see
the 5th floor employee wave and one from The Missing Bullet documentary
that has the best and clearest version (not too zoomed in where it
distorts the image) where you can see the small movement in the window.
There is another YouTube clip where someone utilized a software imaging
program on a black and white version of the Hughes film which you can see
the movement but,I can't seem to find that clip anymore.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=atjBX8Nm6lI


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=owCp9cOannk

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 8:15:23 AM UTC-7, CAMPBE...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Was Harold Norman the shooter?
>
> Please tell me you're kidding and that you don't actually think that! The
> Hughes film hasn't been tampered with. You can plainly see one of the
> three fith floor employees(Norman,Williams or Jarmon) waving as the limo
> passes underneath them in the Hughes film.

Witness Howard Brennan saw NO ONE in that window, as per his Commission
testimony. Norman wasn't even on the fifth floor at the time of the
shooting; neither was Jarman, as per his next-day affidavit.

dcw

[Ace Kefford]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 3:47:53 PM UTC-4, InsideSparta wrote:

I've got your answers:
- More disturbing: the person that made it.

- More pathetic: the people that actually believe such nonsense.

- And as a tie-breaker, most frightening: the people that actually
believe such nonsense because there are more of them and they are
allowed to vote. You know, the Pizza Gate, Vince Foster murder,
etc. alternative facts folks.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/19/2018 11:15 AM, CAMPBE...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Was Harold Norman the shooter?
>

NO.Physically impssosible. The acoustical evidence shows that the 3
shots fired from the TSBD all came from the sixth floor. None from the
fifth floor.

> Please tell me you're kidding and that you don't actually think that! The
> Hughes film hasn't been tampered with. You can plainly see one of the

Well, it was digitized if that's what you mean.
You don't even have a copy of the Hughes film, do you? I do.
Nothing to see here, move on.

> three fith floor employees(Norman,Williams or Jarmon) waving as the limo
> passes underneath them in the Hughes film. You can also see something
> move,albeit a small movement in the snipers nest window. I'll post two

No.

> links,one from when Frontline examined the film where you can plainly see
> the 5th floor employee wave and one from The Missing Bullet documentary

You mean Frontline looked at a digitized copy and saw dancing pixels.
BFD.

[David Von Pein]

Then who is the guy on the right in the Dillard photo here (CE482)? Do you
think the evil plotters "inserted" Norman into this picture after the
assassination?....

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-051.html

[donald willis]

As I've argued before, I do believe that *Jarman* was inserted into the
Dillard wide-angle photo. (I've never seen Norman in the latter, though
Prof. Marsh says he has a photo which shows Norman there.) But I don't
have any evidence which indicates that Norman was inserted into the
Dillard zoom-lens photo, pictured here.

The facts that Jarman did not mention the fifth floor in his next-day
affidavit, and that Norman did not mention it until the next Tuesday
indicates that something may be rotten in Dallas....

Also, as noted above, Brennan thought that he saw no one in the
fifth-floor end window, Norman's window, but, supposedly, he saw Jarman &
Norman downstairs after the shooting. Highly unlikely, as Brennan put
both the people he saw in "Williams'" window....

Again, as Prof. Marsh says, don't pay any attention to witnesses....


dcw

[19e...@mail.com]

The Norman window is not occupied in the Dillard wide angle, and Norman,
obviously, was cut and pasted into the alleged zoom of Dillard's wide
angle and the close-up shot, which are actually the same photo even though
Dillard's WC story says they are made from 2 different negatives. But,
that doesn't mean that these guys weren't on the 5th floor. Maybe Jarman
just did not want to mention the 5th floor for other reasons. The Hughes
Film shows people in those windows and the Weaver photo shows 2 light
shirted people in Norman's window. Bonnie Ray was wearing a dark shirt,
and the other two were wearing light shirts. Of course, any of the
photography could have been altered, but I think this all means that all
three guys were on the fifth floor, but that they moving around, not
because they were excited to see the president, but because they had jobs
to do when JFK went by. The title of this thread says what they were up
to. Norman was shooting. Jarman was handling the radio, and Bonnie Ray
Williams was playing the pretty boy in the window just to make sure
somebody was always there to be seen. That might explain why Jarman didn't
want to talk about the 5th floor at first. Shots had to come from near the
Oswald window so that Oswald could be implicated. And Norman was shooting
from the window below Oswald's, standing back from the window, as anybody
who didn't want to be seen shooting would. Meanwhile on the 6th floor,
somebody is poking a rifle out the window because he wants it to be seen.
We are supposed to think the shooting comes from the 6th floor when it
really comes from the 5th. Euins was directly asked by the WC whether or
not he saw the muzzle flash, and he said he didn't, even though he thought
he was looking at the gun when it fired. It is revealing that he would
even be asked the question. The questioner must have suspected what was
happening. Brennan was not specifically asked about muzzle flash when he
was asked whether he actually saw the 5th floor gun firing. Anybody would
think it was the firing weapon if it was there while somebody was shooting
from the window underneath. But they asked Euins if he saw the muzzle
flash, indicating a suspicion that it was not actually the gun that was
firing. You don't stick your gun out the window to shoot the president;
you stick it out to be seen. And Arlen Specter understood that, so he
wanted to know if Euins actually saw the muzzle flash. Euins did not see
the muzzle flash, and nobody else reported seeing a muzzle flash, though
the WC stopped asking. "We'll try it out on the black kid and see what he
says." Euins also described the shooter as a man with a very prominent
bald spot. He must have said that about 15 times in his testimony. The 6th
floor shooter had a bald spot.

[Anthony Marsh]

AS IF Brennan was smart enough to know which floor was which.

> Again, as Prof. Marsh says, don't pay any attention to witnesses....
>

Not what I said. I ALWAYS pay attention to witnesses. They are clue, not
facts. I always say NEVER RELY ON WITNESSES.

>
> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the black man with the bald spot?
Or are you talking about Trump again? He wasn't ALWAYS bald.

[bigdog]

About the time you arrived on the scene we had another poster leave us who
was fond of using the term obviously when making a claim for which there
is no supporting evidence. I was wondering if the two of you might be
related.

> Maybe Jarman
> just did not want to mention the 5th floor for other reasons. The Hughes
> Film shows people in those windows and the Weaver photo shows 2 light
> shirted people in Norman's window. Bonnie Ray was wearing a dark shirt,
> and the other two were wearing light shirts. Of course, any of the
> photography could have been altered, but I think this all means that all
> three guys were on the fifth floor, but that they moving around, not
> because they were excited to see the president, but because they had jobs
> to do when JFK went by.

That's the only reason you can think of for why those three might have
been moving around?

> The title of this thread says what they were up
> to. Norman was shooting. Jarman was handling the radio, and Bonnie Ray
> Williams was playing the pretty boy in the window just to make sure
> somebody was always there to be seen.

The supporting evidence for that amazing theory seems a little thin.

> That might explain why Jarman didn't
> want to talk about the 5th floor at first. Shots had to come from near the
> Oswald window so that Oswald could be implicated. And Norman was shooting
> from the window below Oswald's, standing back from the window, as anybody
> who didn't want to be seen shooting would. Meanwhile on the 6th floor,
> somebody is poking a rifle out the window because he wants it to be seen.

Can I ask a stupid question. Why would they have a decoy gunman on the
sixth floor and shoot JFK from the fifth floor? Why not just shoot JFK
from the sixth floor. Why go to all the trouble which would create the
likelihood that gunmen would be seen on both floors which would pretty
much screw the plan to implicate on guy?

> We are supposed to think the shooting comes from the 6th floor when it
> really comes from the 5th.

Why would they care which floor witnesses saw a gunman from. They could
have shot JFK from either floor and still blamed Oswald regardless of
which floor they chose?

> Euins was directly asked by the WC whether or
> not he saw the muzzle flash, and he said he didn't, even though he thought
> he was looking at the gun when it fired.

If it is in daylight, it is unlikely he would have seen the muzzle flash
unless he was somewhere in front of the rifle.

> It is revealing that he would
> even be asked the question. The questioner must have suspected what was
> happening. Brennan was not specifically asked about muzzle flash when he
> was asked whether he actually saw the 5th floor gun firing. Anybody would
> think it was the firing weapon if it was there while somebody was shooting
> from the window underneath. But they asked Euins if he saw the muzzle
> flash, indicating a suspicion that it was not actually the gun that was
> firing. You don't stick your gun out the window to shoot the president;
> you stick it out to be seen. And Arlen Specter understood that, so he
> wanted to know if Euins actually saw the muzzle flash. Euins did not see
> the muzzle flash, and nobody else reported seeing a muzzle flash, though
> the WC stopped asking. "We'll try it out on the black kid and see what he
> says." Euins also described the shooter as a man with a very prominent
> bald spot. He must have said that about 15 times in his testimony. The 6th
> floor shooter had a bald spot.

This is the result of an unchecked, runaway imagination when common sense
isn't around to rein it in.

[19e...@mail.com]

I don't know what other poster you are referring to. Perhaps that is just
your runaway imagination kicking in when common sense is not around to
rein it in. Obviously, you can think of no other explanation for somebody
using the word "obviously," than that it must be the same person. It must
have been Oswald, obviously. You know nothing about the supporting
evidence. Lone Nutters love to ask "why?" in order to ignore the evidence.
I guess that is much easier than explaining evidence that contradicts
their beloved official story. Also, it invites their target to speculate,
because any explanation of motivation must be speculation. This provides
another target. If an honest person were asking me why, then I would
speculate. But with an obviously dishonest person it is a waste of time.
You actually dealt with the evidence of the muzzle flash! Congratulations!
I don't think your answer is correct, but I'm going to throw a party to
celebrate. I taught Bigdog to sit!

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, except for those pesky witnesses who were there where your shooters
wanted to be.

And you can't know beforehand who is filming or photographing from what
angles. Should you preposition conspirators to kill witnesses and
confiscate film just in case they accidentally caught the perps in a
photo? Wouldn't that make the conspiracy kinda obvious? One more reason I
can't believe Gordon Anold's story about a conspirator coming around the
fence to beat him up and steal his film.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

This is what happens when CTers attempt to "explain away" the evidence in
the JFK case --- they (the CTers) end up putting a scenario on the table
that almost always makes them (the CTers) end up looking very silly (and
even *more* desperate).

The same thing occurred with the ridiculous "Let's Shoot Kennedy From The
Front & Then Try To Frame Patsy Oswald In The Rear" shooting scenario that
was endorsed by moviemaker Oliver Stone. It's hard to beat that one in the
"Illogical" and "Insane" categories.

https://www.amazon.com/review/R1ZW3QU49S1AM1

[bigdog]

I read your excellent summation of Stone's movie. Just to take the points
you made a little farther, if memory serves they show a brief scene of the
shooters planting 3 shells on the 6th floor. Yet the shooters collectively
fired 6 shots at JFK. How did they know only two of their 6 shots would
hit the target? Or maybe they theorize there were 3 hits. I suppose if
there were 4 hits the claim could be made that the last shell wasn't
ejected. But what if there were 5 or 6 strikes to JFK and Connally or even
bullets striking others in the limo or just striking inside the limo
itself. How could that be with only 3 shells on the floor. Did they know
in advance that only 4 of the 6 shots they fired would strike anywhere
inside the limo? This is why I say that when it comes to postulating
conspiracy theories, the devil is in the details. So far nobody has been
able to come up with one that fits the evidence and makes sense. They
can't even come up with one that meets either of those criteria.

[Anthony Marsh]

Good point.

Actually it appears that the Carcano was not sticking out the window. The
acoustical evidence suggests that the rifle was back about 1-/2 feet away
from the plane of the window.

[19e...@mail.com]

Unlike these two, I don't waste my time with fictionalizations of the JFK
assassination. I have never watched this silly movie and have no desire
to. Movies of this sort corrupt the evidence. I take it that the Umbrella
Man was pumping his umbrella up and down in the film, since dolts
occasionally say that happened. Such films create false impressions of the
evidence that are hard to overcome. Lone Nutters apparently enjoy the
fiction because it gives them something other than the evidence to rabid
on about. Knocking down straw men somehow makes their official story seem
less silly.

[19e...@mail.com]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

The link below is to a YouTube video showing somebody firing a 6.5
Carcano. The poster says in his show notes, "shooting a Carcano 6.5 rifle
not much recoil but what a bang. The muzzle flash is over 4 feet long."
The muzzle flash is over 4 feet long, and you can easily see it in the
video. Euins was looking at the gun when he heard a shot fired and he saw
no muzzle flash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMMHW_xGWcg