Positioning The Gunman In The Sniper's Nest

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html


David, spot on as usual. Let me once again compliment you on both the
quality and quantity of your website. If there is another one anywhere
with more useful information regarding the JFK assassination, I have yet
to see it.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 4:26:02 AM UTC+2, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html

You'll be batting a thousand soon, Dave. I mean, posting a thousand.
The never-ending story.

[Robert Harris]

David, you posted an insulting accusation that I essentially, lied about
that the statements of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan and others.

I replied in detail, proving that you were flatly wrong.

You need to either apologize or defend your accusation with facts and
evidence which as usual, were missing from your attack.

After you do that, you might want to address my post on Dr. Guinn, who
is another witness that corroborated the FBI's deception. Perhaps, you
will explain where Mr. Hoover found "replacements" for the CE-842
fragments which originally included the *ONLY* frags removed from
Connally's wrist.



I said,

>> Unfortunately, some of the evidence was falsified by the FBI,
including >> CE399, as was confirmed by Governor Connally, District
attorney Henry >> Wade, and many others.
>>
>> This article explains in detail:
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html >>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris

David said,

"None of those people (Connally, Wade, and "many others") 'confirmed'
any such thing. It's only in Bob Harris' unique CT world that such
allegations of evidence manipulation blossom into full-fledged
'confirmation'. In the real world, however, such confirmation doesn't
exist---nor has it ever existed."

As usual, David makes all kinds of accusations without a shred of
evidence or reason.

If we look at the relevant evidence and the the witness statements, it
quickly becomes obvious, why he does that:-)

John Connally said,

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the
floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up
and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one
that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from
my thigh."

Obviously, that was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered and
originally said, was NOT from Connally's stretcher,

DA Wade said,

Wade: I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the
operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was
on the gurney that Connally was on..

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?

Wade: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
assume that's the pristine bullet.


Wade corroborated Connally, who said the bullet fell to the floor as he
was being transferred off of the gurney/stretcher. The nurse did exactly
what Wade told her to do, and passed the bullet on to the nearest cop.

Officer Bobby Nolan said,

Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides.
His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson).
And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she
had the bullet that came off of the gurney.

Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's
gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were
just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him"

Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?

Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet.


Nolan fully confirmed that the nurse stated it was a whole bullet -
exactly as Connally stated, and that it came from his "gurney", exactly
as Wade also confirmed.

More corroboration came from nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell, who denied
the FBI's claim that she told them she passed an envelope of tiny
fragments to officer Nolan. This is from the ARRB, re: the FBI report
which contained the false claims:

"When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number
000919, Record # 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two
respects: it quotes her as turning over ?the metal fragment (singular),?
whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she turned
over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it
over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret
Service."

Notice that the FBI also lied, claiming there was a single item in her
envelope. They thought they had to do that, since they were trying pass it
off as the envelope Nolan turned in, which really did contain a single
item.

So far, that's five people who confirmed that the FBI was pulling a fast
one - Connally, Wade, Nolan, the nurse who recovered the actual bullet,
and Audrey Bell.

But I said "MANY" others, didn't I?

Five isn't all that "many", where I come from:-)

How about all four of the men who inspected the stretcher bullet prior
to it going to the FBI?

All four of them flatly refused to confirm that it was CE399.

And how about SA Odum, who flatly denied the FBI's claim that he got
partial corroborations from Wright and Tomlinson?

And FBI agent Todd, who said he marked the stretcher bullet? Do you see
his initial on CE399?

And how about Richard Johnsen, who YOU confirmed, said he marked the
stretcher bullet,

"Further corroboration that at least Johnsen marked the bullet, came
from ex-Secret Service agent, Gerald Blaine, who is a close friend of SA
Clint Hill. In an email to David Von Pein, he stated that Hill had
spoken with agent Johnsen, who told him that he did indeed, mark the
bullet. This is from that email.

'The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.'"

And please don't insult everyone's intelligence, by claiming that when
he said that he "marked" the bullet, he actually meant that he wrote a
memo:-)

Where are Todd's and Johnsen's initials, David?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

They aren't there, because the FBI switched the stretcher bullet that
those men marked, and replaced it with CE399, which ONLY bears the
initials of people at the FBI lab.

Switching the bullet was plan B, David. Their first thought was to just
tell Tomlinson to keep quiet about the bullet he found. It was about 2-3
hours after receiving fragments from the limo that were large enough to
compare with his bullet, that he got a call in the wee hours of the next
morning:

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there
any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you
to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.


BTW, David - are we going to see this one in your blog:-)





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2015 10:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
>

Very misleading as usual. In the SS reenactment you show the window as
wide open when we know it was only half open at the time of the shooting.
Take that phony photo and draw in the bottom frame of the window where it
actually was during the shooting and you'll see the problem. This is
symptomatic of the problem I pointed out with Bugliosi's book. So many WC
defenders have told so many obvious lies that the public think the only
possible reason for all the obvious lies was to cover up the conspiracy.
You alone are the best argument for conspiracy. We know the window was
only halfway open and you show it wide open. What's up with that, dude?
You think no one will notice? You can fool some of the people all the
time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. Compare the
photo of Frazier filming the reenactment with the window wide open:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ce887.jpg

to the reconstruction photos actually measuring how open the window was:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/CE1312.db.jpg

Even the WC couldn't get away with their lies, which is what caused the
public to think it was a conspiracy.


And don't even get me started on the stacking of the boxes. BTW, actual
scientific evidence proved that a rifle fired 3 shots from that window.
But because the WC defenders are climate change deniers that do not
believe in science.

[Edward Bauer]

I agree wholeheartedly. I have yet to see anyone out-argue DVP on any
aspect of this case.

But I'll try. Oswald would have had to change his position for the first
shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he
was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot.
Changing his position would not have been necessary.

[Robert Harris]

LOL!!

http://jfkhistory.com/cheerleader.gif





Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

A website that is totally a conspiracy denialist site. It uses other
people as foils and makes them appear to be foolish next to DVP's wise
comments. Not worth the time to bother.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, bigdog. :-)

FYI -- Here's another new page at one of my sites that I think might be of
interest to people here. I've culled a portion of these RFK/JFK phone
calls in the past, in order to highlight the humorous part where JFK calls
John McCone a "bastard". I figure some CTers might want to use that
comment to start up a new theory about how McCone of the CIA murdered
Kennedy after getting wind of this phone call....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/telephone-calls-between-jfk-and-rfk.html

(P.S. -- Shhhhh! Don't tell Mainframe I posted this. He'll just get mad at
me again for having the terrible audacity to promote my own webpages. He
thinks I should be locked up in the Dallas County Jail with Jack Ruby for
committing such an offense, and then somebody should throw away the key.)
:-)

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Very misleading as usual. In the SS reenactment[,] you show the window as

wide open when we know it was only half open at the time of the
shooting.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which of the SS re-enactment photos atre you talking about, Tony? You
certainly cannot be referring to this one....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AkkdqItLCh0/VXy1NO0gAHI/AAAAAAABGhM/Nus4FyFf3wc/s2000/Secret-Service-Reenactment-3.png

....or this one....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rrdQU9q9_so/VXy1KI5PE2I/AAAAAAABGhA/1OfmJ5bofSU/s2000/Secret-Service-Reenactment-2.png

Neither of those pictures show the window "wide open" at all.

Therefore, you must be referring to this one....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/S2EHaJGU_gI/AAAAAAAAClU/H22ilGQ44LU/s2000/Still+Image+From+1963+Secret+Service+Film.jpg

But as the first photo above plainly shows, the assassin (i.e., Oswald)
would have been quite capable of getting off his shots even with the
window halfway open. So what difference does it really make if another
picture shows the window open a little bit more?

Tony Marsh, as usual, is just looking for more and more (and more) reasons
to gripe about the various JFK assassination investigations. In this
instance, it's the Secret Service re-enactment that Tony has "found" some
nitpicky fault with.

Tomorrow, Tony will nitpick Allen Dulles to death. The next day, he'll
choose some of John McAdams' webpages to call "misleading" or "lies". And
the day after that, Anthony will focus his nitpicking radar on the Warren
Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the assassination. I'm sure there
must be at least 99 things Tony thinks the WC and FBI screwed up with that
particular reconstruction of the shooting. Right, Tony?

Never-ending nitpicking. But still no non-Carcano bullets. Must be
frustrating for theorists of Tony's ilk.

~sigh~

DVP
6/16/15

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally did not say that. It was made up by his ghost writer.

> Obviously, that was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered and
> originally said, was NOT from Connally's stretcher,
>
> DA Wade said,
>
> Wade: I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the
> operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was
> on the gurney that Connally was on..
>

He ASSUMED that. He didn't witness it.
You know what happens when you ASSuME, don't you? Ask Benny Hill.

> Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
> people have talked about?
>
> Wade: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
> assume that's the pristine bullet.
>

Again, ASSuME. Someone ASSuMES something and then you state it as a
fact. What is that called in classical logic?

>
> Wade corroborated Connally, who said the bullet fell to the floor as he
> was being transferred off of the gurney/stretcher. The nurse did exactly
> what Wade told her to do, and passed the bullet on to the nearest cop.
>
> Officer Bobby Nolan said,
>
> Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides.
> His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson).
> And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that
> she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.
>

Again they ASSuME it was Connally's gurney, so you accept that
assumption as a proven fact. It was actually Ronnie Fuller's gurney.

You will believe ANY BS that anyone says as long as you are predisposed
to believe it.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

The Secret Service said mine is.

[mainframetech]

DVP has often lost debates here. You might have been away when it
happened.

Oswald has recently been shown to have been in the lunchroom when the
shots rang out. Based on the people in the street seeing '2 men' in the
window on the 6th floor, and at the same time Oswald was seen in the
lunchroom, Oswald couldn't be on the 6th floor unless he fought with the
'2 men' to get a place by the window.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

ED BAUER SAID:

Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he
were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming
downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position
would not have been necessary.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect.
But it would have been a mighty *risky* thing for Oswald to do---firing
one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope.
He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot
that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was
to kill the President.

At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate
a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this
argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1
with a wild, stray shot. :)

But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as
fact, Ed. I certainly can't *disprove* it, however. And I doubt anyone
else can either.

[David Von Pein]

More "First Shot" Talk.....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-900.html

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html

I'm always amused when conspiracy hobbyists tell us why certain pieces of
evidence against Oswald would never have been admitted in court. Even if
there actually were a legal reason that is true, which is unlikely, that
line of reasoning would indicate they are not in search of the historical
truth but are trying to get Oswald off the hook on a technicality.
Unfortunately for them, they need to come up with 53 technicalities.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/16/2015 5:10 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Thank you, bigdog. :-)
>
> FYI -- Here's another new page at one of my sites that I think might be of
> interest to people here. I've culled a portion of these RFK/JFK phone
> calls in the past, in order to highlight the humorous part where JFK calls
> John McCone a "bastard". I figure some CTers might want to use that
> comment to start up a new theory about how McCone of the CIA murdered
> Kennedy after getting wind of this phone call....

Jeez, DVP. Don't give 'em any ideas...

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 8:05:28 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
> >
> >
> > David, spot on as usual. Let me once again compliment you on both the
> > quality and quantity of your website. If there is another one anywhere
> > with more useful information regarding the JFK assassination, I have yet
> > to see it.
>
>
> A website that is totally a conspiracy denialist site.

That's a good thing.

> It uses other
> people as foils and makes them appear to be foolish next to DVP's wise
> comments.

They are foolish next to David's wise comments.

> Not worth the time to bother.

Not for someone who wants to cling to their cherished myths.

[Mark Florio]

Good post. I would add one thing. If the window would open more than
halfway, and LHO needed it to, wouldn't he have opened it further? Was he
going to let a window bother him when everything else was falling his way?
Mark

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Very misleading as usual. In the SS reenactment[,] you show the window as
> wide open when we know it was only half open at the time of the
> shooting.

LOL!!

You certainly aren't afraid of the tough ones, are you David:-)






Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Since you mention "non-Carcano" bullets, you need to know that NO MC
rifle bullet hit or hurt anyone, and there is NO proof that they did.

It was necessary to a conspiracy that there be a 'patsy' to take the
blame for the murder, and so NO non-Carcano bullets could be left around
to be seen.

That explains the bullets that were 'disappeared' during the case.
The damaging of the body at 6:35pm at Bethesda was to search the body for
ANY bullets and get rid of them. It would be terribly embarrassing to
find a bullet from some other kind of rifle than the MC rifle attributed
to Oswald.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Now don't go making up stuff about me, DVP. I congratulate you on your
new honesty about your website. But you then take it back with phony
comments about me.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I see, so it's ok with you when authorities falsify evidence and lie, as
long as YOU are sure the personally really is guilty. That's all that
matters, not the evidence. What country are you from where that is how
things are done?

Do you understand what Jury Nullification is? Do you understand why
verdicts are overturned and new trials are ordered?
No, with you it's hang first, ask questions later.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2015 1:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ED BAUER SAID:
>
> Oswald would have had to change his position for the first shot only if he
> were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he was. He was aiming
> downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot. Changing his position
> would not have been necessary.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's an interesting theory indeed. And nobody can prove it's incorrect.

Don't be silly. I can, very easily. The very concept is stupid if you know
anything about rifles. You can't zero in the iron sights. The are preset
at the factory. You can't zero in the scope. It's defective and broken.
Even if it worked perfectly, you have no way to know the exact distance
and have no targets at measured distances. Then it takes a few seconds for
the shooter to adjust the knobs. Not conducive to rapid fire. It's totally
stupid.

> But it would have been a mighty *risky* thing for Oswald to do---firing
> one wild shot, not intended to hit anybody, just to "zero in" his scope.

It's sign of desperation for anyone to make up such a stupid theory.

> He would have been drawing attention to his sniper's location with a shot
> that wasn't even designed to accomplish Oswald's ultimate goal, which was
> to kill the President.
>

Well, not HIS theory, but some moron could come up with a theory that he
was trying to disable the driver or shoot out the tires.

But all of these crazy theories have a fatal flaw. There were only 4
rounds in the rifle and no one can start wasting shots.

> At the same time, however, the whole proposition of trying to assassinate
> a U.S. President is a tad bit "risky" too. So I probably won't win this
> argument by merely saying it was "too risky" for Oswald to waste Shot #1
> with a wild, stray shot. :)
>

Ever hear of the sabot theory? That a snipe put an Oswald test bullet
into a sabot and fired it from a larger caliber rifle to PLANT an Oswald
bullet in the limo.

> But I'm still a bit dubious about accepting your first-shot theory as
> fact, Ed. I certainly can't *disprove* it, however. And I doubt anyone
> else can either.
>

Wouldn't it be helpful to nail down exactly when the chrome topping was
dented?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2015 1:19 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 10:58:57 AM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:
>> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
>>>
>>>
>>> David, spot on as usual. Let me once again compliment you on both the
>>> quality and quantity of your website. If there is another one anywhere
>>> with more useful information regarding the JFK assassination, I have yet
>>> to see it.
>>
>> I agree wholeheartedly. I have yet to see anyone out-argue DVP on any
>> aspect of this case.
>>
>> But I'll try. Oswald would have had to change his position for the first
>> shot only if he were aiming at the limousine, which I don't believe he
>> was. He was aiming downrange to zero his weapon with the first shot.
>> Changing his position would not have been necessary.
>
>
>
>
> DVP has often lost debates here. You might have been away when it
> happened.
>
> Oswald has recently been shown to have been in the lunchroom when the

Do you understand that the lunchroom is on the second floor?
He was last seen in the Domino room.

> shots rang out. Based on the people in the street seeing '2 men' in the
> window on the 6th floor, and at the same time Oswald was seen in the
> lunchroom, Oswald couldn't be on the 6th floor unless he fought with the
> '2 men' to get a place by the window.
>

How do you know Oswald wasn't one of the 2 men?

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

Sure they did, Tony. And we all believe that. You would never make
something like that up.

[bigdog]

That myth has been around for decades and you are just now discovering it
so you think it is a recent development. The reality is that not a single
witness and no forensic evidence can place him in the lunchroom at 12:30.

[bigdog]

Excellent line of reasoning and so obvious that I'm embarassed to say I
didn't think of it. Of course if the window wasn't opened wide enough, he
could have easily raised it until it was. Methinks he probably only opened
it as far as he needed to make the shots figuring the sill and the
reflection off the glass would give him a bit more concealment than a wide
open window would have.

[donald willis]

You know, of course, that your observations are going to fall on deaf
ears. No potential or real problem with a 6th-floor "sniper's nest" is
going to make LNers blink. Witness Brennan said that at one point the
suspect lay on the window sill and that he could see almost all of him.
Half-open window--no problem. Witness Fischer said that he could even see
the sniper's slacks! In his testimony, he added that he could see as much
of the sniper as he did because the window was wide open. No problem.

dcw

[Robert Harris]

It's one thing to post nothing but blurtations. It's quite another to
post phony accusations, accusing a highly respected writer of being a liar.

I would ask you to prove your accusation, but we all know that you
cannot and will not do that. You just make up outlandish crap and try to
pass it off on anyone who's stupid enough to believe it.

>
>> Obviously, that was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered and
>> originally said, was NOT from Connally's stretcher,
>>
>> DA Wade said,
>>
>> Wade: I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the
>> operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was
>> on the gurney that Connally was on..
>>
>
> He ASSUMED that. He didn't witness it.

This is insane, Tony.

He "assumed" nothing. He simply related what the nurse told him.

"Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
that Connally was on."

> You know what happens when you ASSuME, don't you? Ask Benny Hill.

Well, I assumed he told the truth.

And since Connally said the same thing, I think it falls under the
category of 5 star, golden assumptions.

>
>> Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
>> people have talked about?
>>
>> Wade: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
>> assume that's the pristine bullet.
>>
>
> Again, ASSuME. Someone ASSuMES something and then you state it as a
> fact.

ROFLMAO!!

No, I NEVER stated that as "fact" - mainly because he was obviously wrong.

That could not possibly have been the "pristine bullet", AKA CE399.

> What is that called in classical logic?

If I told you that Tony, my post would probably be censored:-)

>
>>
>> Wade corroborated Connally, who said the bullet fell to the floor as he
>> was being transferred off of the gurney/stretcher. The nurse did exactly
>> what Wade told her to do, and passed the bullet on to the nearest cop.
>>
>> Officer Bobby Nolan said,
>>
>> Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides.
>> His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson).
>> And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that
>> she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.
>>
>
> Again they ASSuME it was Connally's gurney,

Wrong as usual.

Nolan obviously did assume she was referring to Connally's gurney, but
Wade said,

"Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
that Connally was on."

He said that as a statement of fact. It was not an assumption.

So did John Connally, who stated that the bullet fell to the floor, from
his stretcher/gurney and that he saw that nurse pick it up.

> so you accept that
> assumption as a proven fact.

Of course I do. No sane person wouldn't.

> It was actually Ronnie Fuller's gurney.

Then why did the nurse say that it came from Connally's gurney?

And why did Connally said it came from Connally's gurney?




Robert Harris

[Edward Bauer]

Thanks for your kind reply, DVP.

Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully
aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the
crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the
bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody
reacted. (To say nothing of the essential requirement of re-zeroing after
disassembling and reassembling a rifle.)

Is there a better explanation for Oswald's "positioning" dilemma? Or a
first shot miss? Or the fresh bullet gouge on the Main St. curb? Or his
un-zeroed miss of Gen. Walker? Many questions answered here.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 3:02:07 PM UTC-4, Mark Florio wrote:

The timings recently showed he wasn't even in the window at the time of
the shots. So the point is moot.

Chris

[mainframetech]

A website full of cherished myths.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2015 8:10 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Thank you, bigdog. :-)
>
> FYI -- Here's another new page at one of my sites that I think might be of
> interest to people here. I've culled a portion of these RFK/JFK phone
> calls in the past, in order to highlight the humorous part where JFK calls
> John McCone a "bastard". I figure some CTers might want to use that
> comment to start up a new theory about how McCone of the CIA murdered
> Kennedy after getting wind of this phone call....
>

How would McCone get wind of it? Was he tapping their phone calls?

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/telephone-calls-between-jfk-and-rfk.html
>
> (P.S. -- Shhhhh! Don't tell Mainframe I posted this. He'll just get mad at
> me again for having the terrible audacity to promote my own webpages. He
> thinks I should be locked up in the Dallas County Jail with Jack Ruby for
> committing such an offense, and then somebody should throw away the key.)
> :-)
>

PS do you have their phone calls about what to do about Marilyn Monroe
or are you covering it up? Have you filed an FOIA for the 4 or 5
transcripts of the WH recordings they destroyed?

Why is it that you can never answer my questions? What are you hiding?

[Ralph Cinque]

My reply to you, Von Pein. Hey, I'm making you famous.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/06/ace-dis-info-operative-david-von-pein.html

[mainframetech]

What a shame! DVP doesn't know we've proved that Oswald was in the
lunchroom during the shooting, based on timings. bd knows it, but he's
playing like he doesn't.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! I*t was impossible for a witness to place Oswald in the
window, since there were 2 men with a rifle seen there by witnesses. And
the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear. Oswald at
the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.
But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
found Oswald still in the lunchroom.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course, but not with the books stacked up like that.
It prevents shooting from that window.
The boxes were not originally stacked that way. That was my ONLY point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Methinks he said Lunchroom when he meant Domino room. A lot of people
make that mistake.

[donald willis]

"Concealment"--that's hilarious. The guy who was lying on the window sill
(as per Brennan, who testified he could see almost his whole body), lying
down in a funny way (as per Fischer, who testified that he couldn't have
seen as much of the guy as he did if he hadn't been at a wide open
window), this guy was hardly thinking of "concealment"! Love it when
LNers speculate....

dcw

[Jason Burke]

On 6/18/2015 1:53 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> My reply to you, Von Pein. Hey, I'm making you famous.
>
> http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2015/06/ace-dis-info-operative-david-von-pein.html
>

Don't'cha wish you could make yourself famous, Ralph?

Ain't goin' too well, is it?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not necessarily and not necessary. And why does it have to be Oswald.
Was Oswald in charge of opening the windows that day? You can shoot out
that window opened only halfway. It's just that the way the cops stacked
up the boxes makes it difficult.

The the shots were taken from about a foot and a half back from the
window.

[David Von Pein]

ED BAUER SAID:

Ah, but David, it was anything but a "wild, stray shot." Oswald carefully
aimed at a still target, took note of where it hit relative to the
crosshairs, adjusted the windage and elevation screws and operated the
bolt. Less than ten seconds. Could have been ten minutes; nobody reacted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wait a second, Ed. Please clarify something for me....

Are you actually suggesting that Oswald possibly fired his first "zeroing
in" shot BEFORE the President's car even entered Dealey Plaza? ("Ten
minutes"?) It kind of sounds like you *are* advocating that possibility.

If so, I think *that* would have been way too "risky" for Oswald to do. It
would have been crazy, in fact. He would have been advertising the fact
that a person with a gun was in the TSBD many minutes before JFK ever even
entered the kill zone. Plenty of time for someone to get up there to the
sixth floor to investigate and to prevent the assassination.

Is that *really* what you think might have happened, Ed? Or did I
misinterpret your "could have been 10 minutes" remark?

But even your "less than ten seconds" comment is not reasonable, IMO.
Oswald wouldn't have had time to re-adjust the scope settings if he had
fired a "zeroing in" shot *after* JFK's car had turned onto Elm Street.
How could he possibly have thought he would have had time to adjust the
scope in such a short space of time?

FWIW....

If I were forced at gunpoint to make a final determination on what I think
happened with respect to the topic of whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald
utilized the four-power telescope on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle on
11/22/63, I'd say it probably happened this way....

Oswald fired his first shot through the scope at approximately Zapruder
frame 160. After firing that shot, Oswald realized that it didn't hit a
darn thing. He then might have realized that the scope was misaligned and
needed adjusting before he could use it again effectively. Realizing also
that he would, of course, have no time to perform any adjustments on the
scope, he quickly switched to the open iron sights at the end of the rifle
barrel for his last two shots (at Z224 and Z313).

The above scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 12:05:15 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 1:23 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
> >
> > I'm always amused when conspiracy hobbyists tell us why certain pieces of
> > evidence against Oswald would never have been admitted in court. Even if
> > there actually were a legal reason that is true, which is unlikely, that
> > line of reasoning would indicate they are not in search of the historical
> > truth but are trying to get Oswald off the hook on a technicality.
> > Unfortunately for them, they need to come up with 53 technicalities.
> >
> >
>
>
> I see, so it's ok with you when authorities falsify evidence and lie, as
> long as YOU are sure the personally really is guilty. That's all that
> matters, not the evidence. What country are you from where that is how
> things are done?
>

Is that what you took from what I wrote. Your reading comprehension really
is bad. Maybe instead of just skimming through the posts you reply to you
should actually take the time to read them for comprehension. But then you
might not have the time to meet your quote of 100 posts per day.

> Do you understand what Jury Nullification is? Do you understand why
> verdicts are overturned and new trials are ordered?
> No, with you it's hang first, ask questions later.

I suppose you think a jury would have exercised their right to
nullification had Oswald gone to trial. Jury nullication is nothing more
than a jury deciding because of unique circumstances of the case not to
apply the law and acquit a defendant even when the evidence dictates they
were guilty. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that would have
happened.

[bigdog]

No witness said two men were in the SN window. That is your embellishment.
You tried to combine two seperate observations as if they were one. One or
more witnesses may have seen two different men on the 6th floor between at
sometime between 12:00 and 12:30. BRW testified he was there shortly after
12:00. We have forensic evidence and a witness who testified to seeing
Oswald in the SN when the shots were fired. There is no witness who places
BRW or anybody other than Oswald in that window at any time and BRW said
he could not see into the area of the SN, so once again your argument
collapses despite your feeble efforts to twist witness accounts to force
fit them to your silly theories.

> And
> the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.

Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.

> Oswald at
> the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.

A guess as to the time. There would have been no reason for her to mark
the exact time she saw Oswald there.

> But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
>

Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
theory.

[mainframetech]

As well there were witnesses from the street that saw 2 men with a
rifle in the 6th floor window. Sort of kills the 'lone gunman' wacky
theory of the WC lawyers...:) Also lets Oswald off the hook, since he was
seen in the lunchroom at the same time that the men were in the
window...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

It doesn't have to be Oswald. It was Oswald.

> Was Oswald in charge of opening the windows that day? You can shoot out
> that window opened only halfway. It's just that the way the cops stacked
> up the boxes makes it difficult.
>
> The the shots were taken from about a foot and a half back from the
> window.
>

That's why the witnesses saw the rifle being drawn back inside the window.
But of course you know better. You know everything better than everyone
else.

[Anthony Marsh]

Excellent point.

> lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from

It was the door closing that caught his eye. He did not think they had
yet invented remotely computer controlled doors.
But the door did close automatically after someone went through.

> him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> theory.
>
>

He was walking away. He did not want to share his Coke.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the Dr. Pepper defense
like the Twinkie Defense (q.v.).

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2015 11:36 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 12:05:15 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/17/2015 1:23 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
>>>
>>> I'm always amused when conspiracy hobbyists tell us why certain pieces of
>>> evidence against Oswald would never have been admitted in court. Even if
>>> there actually were a legal reason that is true, which is unlikely, that
>>> line of reasoning would indicate they are not in search of the historical
>>> truth but are trying to get Oswald off the hook on a technicality.
>>> Unfortunately for them, they need to come up with 53 technicalities.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I see, so it's ok with you when authorities falsify evidence and lie, as
>> long as YOU are sure the personally really is guilty. That's all that
>> matters, not the evidence. What country are you from where that is how
>> things are done?
>>
>
> Is that what you took from what I wrote. Your reading comprehension really
> is bad. Maybe instead of just skimming through the posts you reply to you
> should actually take the time to read them for comprehension. But then you
> might not have the time to meet your quote of 100 posts per day.
>

I know it's what you mean, no matter how you try to disguise it.

>> Do you understand what Jury Nullification is? Do you understand why
>> verdicts are overturned and new trials are ordered?
>> No, with you it's hang first, ask questions later.
>
> I suppose you think a jury would have exercised their right to
> nullification had Oswald gone to trial. Jury nullication is nothing more

No. I said a long time ago that Oswald would have been easily convicted in
a Dallas court. Then a smart lawyer named Mark Lane would have written a
book called I Accuse and turned it into a cause celebre and had the
conviction thrown out by SCOTUS 12 years later, sparking a Congressional
investigation which would prove conspiracy.

> than a jury deciding because of unique circumstances of the case not to
> apply the law and acquit a defendant even when the evidence dictates they
> were guilty. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that would have
> happened.
>

Not in Dallas.
Wade could convict a ham sandwich.

[donald willis]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at cut

> >
> > WRONG again! I*t was impossible for a witness to place Oswald in the
> > window, since there were 2 men with a rifle seen there by witnesses.
>
> No witness said two men were in the SN window. That is your embellishment.
> You tried to combine two seperate observations as if they were one. One or
> more witnesses may have seen two different men on the 6th floor between at
> sometime between 12:00 and 12:30. BRW testified he was there shortly after
> 12:00.

And that he stayed there until he heard Norman and Jarman, below, about
12:25. Good thing Oswald didn't sneeze during those 25 minutes!

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Someone is lying, but it wasn't Oswald LYING on the window sill or Brennan
lying about that. He never said LYING. Someone is LYING about that.

>
> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

WHEN? No one saw 2 men there during the shooting.

> the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear. Oswald at
> the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.

Please quote where she said that.

Buttressing the above-discussed evidence is the story of another employee,
who claimed to have seen Oswald on the first floor around 12:15. Mrs.
Carolyn Arnold, a secretary at the Depository, was the crucial witness.
Her story was omitted not only from the Report but also from the
Commission's printed evidence. It was only through the diligent searching
of Harold Weisberg that an FBI report of an early interview with her came
to light.[5] She spoke with FBI agents on November 26, 1963, only three
days after the assassination. The brief report of the interview states
that

she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November
22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go
downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential
Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated that
she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in
the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading into the
warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure this was
OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes
before 12:15 PM. (CD5:41)

As Weisberg cautioned in his book Photographic Whitewash, where he
presents this FBI report, "This is the FBI retailing [sic] of what Mrs.
Arnold said, not her actual words."[6]

Mrs. Arnold was never called as a witness before the Commission;
absolutely no effort was made to check her accuracy or obtain further
details of her story. If what she related was true, she provided the proof
that Oswald could not have shot at the President. The Commission's failure
to pursue her vital story was a failure to follow up evidence of Oswald's
innocence.

Mrs. Arnold was reinterviewed by the FBI on March 18, 1964, in
compliance with Rankin's request to Hoover for statements from all
Depository employees present at work November 22 (22H634). In accordance
with the deliberate wording of Rankin's items to be included in the
statements as discussed earlier, Mrs. Arnold was not asked about seeing
Oswald before the shooting, as she earlier said she did. Instead, she
provided the specific information requested in item (4) of Rankin's
letter: "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was
shot." "At the time" of the assassination obviously is not the same as
"before" the assassination. If Rankin for some specific reason avoided
asking about any employee who had seen Oswald right before the shots, he
could have had no better witness in mind than Mrs. Arnold.

In her March 18 statement, Mrs. Arnold wrote: "I left the Texas
School Book Depository at about 12:25 PM." The report of her first
interview states that she left her office on the second floor between
12:00 and 12:15 and saw Oswald from outside the building at "a few minutes
before 12:15." The important distinction between these two estimates is
that one is in Mrs. Arnold's words, the other but a paraphrase. Of the
people who left the Depository with Mrs. Arnold, Mrs. Donald Baker
recalled having left at about 12:15 (22H635), Miss Judy Johnson at about
12:15 (22H656), Bonnie Rachey also at 12:15 (22H671), and Mrs. Betty
Dragoo at 12:20 (22H645).

It is perfectly reasonable to assert that Mrs. Arnold saw a man
whom "she felt" was Oswald on the first floor anywhere between a few
minutes before 12:15 and, at the latest, 12:25. The actual time probably
tended toward the 12:15 to 12:20 period. The significance of this one
piece of information is startling; the "gunman" on the sixth floor was
there from 12:15 on. If Mrs. Arnold really did see Oswald on the first
floor at this time, he could not have been a sixth-floor assassin.

Arnold Rowland is the first person known to have spotted a man
with a rifle on the sixth floor of the Depository. The time of this
observation was, according to Rowland, who had noted the large "Hertz"
clock atop the Depository, 12:15 (2H169-72). Rowland provided an even
more accurate means for checking his time estimate:

there was a motorcycle parked just on the street, not in front of
us, just a little past us, and the radio was on it giving details of the
motorcade, where it was positioned, and right after the time I noticed
him (the man on the sixth floor) and when my wife was pointing this
other thing to me . . . the dispatcher came on and gave the position of
the motorcade as being on Cedar Springs. This would be in the area of
Turtle Creek, down in that area. . . . And this was the position of the
motorcade and it was about 15 or 16 after 12. (2H172-73; emphasis added)

Rowland could not have had access to the police radio logs. However,
every version of these logs in the Commission's evidence shows that the
location of the motorcade described by Rowland was in fact broadcast
between 12:15 and 12:16 PM (17H460; 21H390; 23H911). We must note also
that while Rowland first noticed this man before hearing the broadcast
at 12:15, it is possible that he had been there for some period of time
prior to that.

The difference between Mrs. Arnold's earliest estimate of the
time she possibly saw Oswald on the first floor and the time Rowland saw
the sixth-floor gunman is but a few minutes, hardly enough time for
Oswald to have picked up his rifle, made his way to the sixth floor,
assembled the rifle, and appeared at the appropriate window. If Mrs.
Arnold's later estimates are accurate, then Oswald was, in fact, on the
first floor while the "assassin" was on the sixth.

Without elaboration from Mrs. Arnold, we can draw no conclusions
based on the brief FBI report of her first interview. At this late date,
I feel that Mrs. Arnold can not honestly clarify the information
reported by the FBI, either through fear of challenging the official
story or through knowledge of the implication of what she knows. It was
the duty of the Warren Commission to seek out Mrs. Arnold to obtain her
full story and test her accuracy, if not in the interest of truth,
certainly so as not posthumously to deny Oswald the possible proof of
his innocence.

The Commission failed in its obligation to the truth for the
simple reason that it (meaning its staff and General Counsel) never
sought the truth. The truth, according to all the relevant evidence in
the Commission's files, is that Oswald was on the first floor at a time
that eliminates the possibility of his having been the sixth-floor
gunman, just as he told the police during his interrogations.

Again, she said FIRST FLOOR. The lunchroom was on the SECOND FLOOR.

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual!! Carolyn Walther saw 2 men, EACH wit ha gun, and she
thought they were on the 4-5th floor, but since the 5th floor had Williams
and his buddies in it, it had to be the 6th floor. Otherwise there were
shooters on the 4th floor too. Here's Walther's statement in a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4

So 2 men with 2 guns were seen in the window, and her time for that was
12:15pm.

Also at 12:15 was John Powell who saw 2 men 'fooling with a scope on a

rifle' in the 6th floor window.

So your silly contention is bullcrap. In BOTH case above, the 2 men
were together, not separate. Try again with some more of your baloney,
now you're getting to the part where I said you would start making stuff
up to try to get out of the corner you're in. And this most recent
attempt was an example.

> > And
> > the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.
>
> Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
> were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
> other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
> that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.
>

First, there was NO embellishment, see above for the proof. Second,
it's a reasonable assumption that neither of the 2 men with a rifle would
leave the window with JFK imminent. Don't even begin to try to pretend
differently.

> > Oswald at
> > the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.
>
> A guess as to the time. There would have been no reason for her to mark
> the exact time she saw Oswald there.
>

It was the usual educated guess, or possibly from looking at a watch or
clock nearby. The EXACT time is not important based on the times we're
dealing with here.

> > But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> > after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> > found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
> >
>
> Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
> whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
> lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
> him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> theory.

No, now you're doing what I said you would do, making stuff up. Baker
didn't see Oswald entering the lunchroom,, he saw him through the window
in the door, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had just
come in, but it wouldn't matter since we know he wasn't at the window on
the 6th floor!

Face it. You can make up baloney until the cows come home, but you
won't get out of the corner you're in...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

It's all baloney. It's now been shown that 2 men with a rifle were
seen in the 6th floor window at the same time that Oswald was seen in the
lunchroom eating by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm. So Oswald wasn't in the
window. The 2 men didn't leave the window knowing that JFK was coming any
minute. If they were there to see him drive by, they wouldn't leave the
window, and if they were there to murder JFK, they wouldn't leave and miss
their chance. Either way, Oswald wasn't in the window.

Chris

[Edward Bauer]

David, thanks for the opportunity to clarify my comment.

No, I don't believe he zeroed his firearm 10 minutes before. That was
just my way of pointing out that no security personnel ever reacted to the
first shot. Oswald's timing was good enough if not perfect. He fired the
first shot just as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm or in the
process of completing its turn. This is when career-trained witnesses
said it was fired (13 of whom are quoted in The Final Truth). More
importantly, it's also where the FBI spliced the 7 frames from the Towner
film, which is exactly, to the frame, when a jiggle would have occurred--
a jiggle which would disprove the FBI's contention of a late first shot.
(It took almost ten years for this splice to be noticed.) The time to the
second shot is 9.5 seconds, time enough.

I like your ideas about Oswald using the iron sights for shots 2 and 3
(and I agree with your timing), but IMO he used the not-yet-damaged scope
for all three shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

Physically impossible. You know absolutely nothing about guns.
You need to know the exact distance to your target.

BTW, prove that the rifle was disassembled and reassembled.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2015 11:56 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/15/2015 11:29 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> David, you posted an insulting accusation that I essentially, lied about
>>> that the statements of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan and
>>> others.
>>>
>>> I replied in detail, proving that you were flatly wrong.
>>>
>>> You need to either apologize or defend your accusation with facts and
>>> evidence which as usual, were missing from your attack.
>>>
>>> After you do that, you might want to address my post on Dr. Guinn, who
>>> is another witness that corroborated the FBI's deception. Perhaps, you
>>> will explain where Mr. Hoover found "replacements" for the CE-842
>>> fragments which originally included the *ONLY* frags removed from
>>> Connally's wrist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I said,
>>>
>>> >> Unfortunately, some of the evidence was falsified by the FBI,
>>> including >> CE399, as was confirmed by Governor Connally, District
>>> attorney Henry >> Wade, and many others.
>>> >>
>>> >> This article explains in detail:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Robert Harris
>>>
>>> David said,
>>>
>>> "None of those people (Connally, Wade, and "many others") 'confirmed'
>>> any such thing. It's only in Bob Harris' unique CT world that such
>>> allegations of evidence manipulation blossom into full-fledged
>>> 'confirmation'. In the real world, however, such confirmation doesn't
>>> exist---nor has it ever existed."
>>>
>>> As usual, David makes all kinds of accusations without a shred of
>>> evidence or reason.
>>>
>>> If we look at the relevant evidence and the the witness statements, it
>>> quickly becomes obvious, why he does that:-)
>>>
>>> John Connally said,
>>>
>>> "..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
>>> the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the
>>> floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it
>>> up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the
>>> one that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose
>>> from my thigh."
>>>
>>
>> Connally did not say that. It was made up by his ghost writer.
>
> It's one thing to post nothing but blurtations. It's quite another to
> post phony accusations, accusing a highly respected writer of being a liar.
>

Typical phony Argument by authority.
Don't be childish. Ghostwriters often embellish their stories to sell books.
Do you really believe that the SS agents jumped out of the Queen Mary
and ran towards the TSBD? You haven't even read the book, have you?
Page 12 for anny real researchers who actually have the book.

> I would ask you to prove your accusation, but we all know that you
> cannot and will not do that. You just make up outlandish crap and try to
> pass it off on anyone who's stupid enough to believe it.

All you have are personal attacks to violate the rules. No facts.

>
>>
>>> Obviously, that was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered and
>>> originally said, was NOT from Connally's stretcher,
>>>
>>> DA Wade said,
>>>
>>> Wade: I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the
>>> operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was
>>> on the gurney that Connally was on..
>>>
>>
>> He ASSUMED that. He didn't witness it.
>
> This is insane, Tony.
>

It' s called Hearsay.

> He "assumed" nothing. He simply related what the nurse told him.
>

Hearsay.

> "Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
> that Connally was on."
>
Hearsay.

>
>> You know what happens when you ASSuME, don't you? Ask Benny Hill.
>
> Well, I assumed he told the truth.
>
> And since Connally said the same thing, I think it falls under the
> category of 5 star, golden assumptions.
>

No, Connally did not. You are misrepresenting testimony to push your pet
theories.

>>
>>> Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
>>> people have talked about?
>>>
>>> Wade: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
>>> assume that's the pristine bullet.
>>>
>>
>> Again, ASSuME. Someone ASSuMES something and then you state it as a
>> fact.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> No, I NEVER stated that as "fact" - mainly because he was obviously wrong.
>

Who was wrong? You mean Wade. First you claim he told the absolute truth.
Then in the next sentence you call him a liar. Make up your mind.

> That could not possibly have been the "pristine bullet", AKA CE399.
>
>
>> What is that called in classical logic?
>
> If I told you that Tony, my post would probably be censored:-)
>

What do you call your false logic?

>>
>>>
>>> Wade corroborated Connally, who said the bullet fell to the floor as he
>>> was being transferred off of the gurney/stretcher. The nurse did exactly
>>> what Wade told her to do, and passed the bullet on to the nearest cop.
>>>
>>> Officer Bobby Nolan said,
>>>
>>> Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides.
>>> His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson).
>>> And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that
>>> she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.
>>>
>>
>> Again they ASSuME it was Connally's gurney,
>
> Wrong as usual.
>

Yes, they were wrong. Do you think that was accidental or a lie?

> Nolan obviously did assume she was referring to Connally's gurney, but
> Wade said,
>
> "Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
> that Connally was on."
>
> He said that as a statement of fact. It was not an assumption.
>

Maybe it was at some time. Especially if it was planted.

> So did John Connally, who stated that the bullet fell to the floor, from
> his stretcher/gurney and that he saw that nurse pick it up.
>

No. Connally sis not say that. His biographer did.

>
>> so you accept that
>> assumption as a proven fact.
>
> Of course I do. No sane person wouldn't.

You are SOOO gullible.

>
>> It was actually Ronnie Fuller's gurney.
>
> Then why did the nurse say that it came from Connally's gurney?
>

She guessed.

> And why did Connally said it came from Connally's gurney?
>
>

He didn't.

>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2015 11:52 AM, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 8:44:33 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>> On 6/14/2015 10:26 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
>>>
>>
>>

>> Very misleading as usual. In the SS reenactment you show the window as

>> wide open when we know it was only half open at the time of the shooting.

>> Take that phony photo and draw in the bottom frame of the window where it
>> actually was during the shooting and you'll see the problem. This is
>> symptomatic of the problem I pointed out with Bugliosi's book. So many WC
>> defenders have told so many obvious lies that the public think the only
>> possible reason for all the obvious lies was to cover up the conspiracy.
>> You alone are the best argument for conspiracy. We know the window was
>> only halfway open and you show it wide open. What's up with that, dude?
>> You think no one will notice? You can fool some of the people all the
>> time, but you can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time. Compare the
>> photo of Frazier filming the reenactment with the window wide open:
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ce887.jpg
>>
>> to the reconstruction photos actually measuring how open the window was:
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/CE1312.db.jpg
>>
>> Even the WC couldn't get away with their lies, which is what caused the
>> public to think it was a conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> And don't even get me started on the stacking of the boxes. BTW, actual
>> scientific evidence proved that a rifle fired 3 shots from that window.
>> But because the WC defenders are climate change deniers that do not
>> believe in science.
>
> You know, of course, that your observations are going to fall on deaf
> ears. No potential or real problem with a 6th-floor "sniper's nest" is
> going to make LNers blink. Witness Brennan said that at one point the
> suspect lay on the window sill and that he could see almost all of him.
> Half-open window--no problem. Witness Fischer said that he could even see
> the sniper's slacks! In his testimony, he added that he could see as much
> of the sniper as he did because the window was wide open. No problem.
>
> dcw
>

I am realistic enough to know that they never pay any attention to
facts. But lurkers do and the might learn something that they never
thought of before. So the effort is not wasted.

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 5:51:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> As well there were witnesses from the street that saw 2 men with a
> rifle in the 6th floor window.

Two men were seen on the 6th floor. Only one of them had a rifle. They
were not together.

> Sort of kills the 'lone gunman' wacky
> theory of the WC lawyers...:) Also lets Oswald off the hook, since he was
> seen in the lunchroom at the same time that the men were in the
> window...:)
>

No it doesn't. The lone gunman had the rifle. The other guy didn't even
know there was a gunman there because his testimony was that he couldn't
see into the sniper's nest from where he was eating his lunch.

Keep trying to bend the facts to force fit them to your silly beliefs.

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:36:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/19/2015 11:36 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 12:05:15 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2015 1:23 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 10:26:02 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-956.html
> >>>
> >>> I'm always amused when conspiracy hobbyists tell us why certain pieces of
> >>> evidence against Oswald would never have been admitted in court. Even if
> >>> there actually were a legal reason that is true, which is unlikely, that
> >>> line of reasoning would indicate they are not in search of the historical
> >>> truth but are trying to get Oswald off the hook on a technicality.
> >>> Unfortunately for them, they need to come up with 53 technicalities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I see, so it's ok with you when authorities falsify evidence and lie, as
> >> long as YOU are sure the personally really is guilty. That's all that
> >> matters, not the evidence. What country are you from where that is how
> >> things are done?
> >>
> >
> > Is that what you took from what I wrote. Your reading comprehension really
> > is bad. Maybe instead of just skimming through the posts you reply to you
> > should actually take the time to read them for comprehension. But then you
> > might not have the time to meet your quote of 100 posts per day.
> >
>
> I know it's what you mean, no matter how you try to disguise it.
>

Since you can't refute what I write, you invent these strawmen instead.
You claimed I was OK with authorities falsifying evidence and lying.
Nothing I wrote remotely suggests either that they did that or that I was
OK with it.

> >> Do you understand what Jury Nullification is? Do you understand why
> >> verdicts are overturned and new trials are ordered?
> >> No, with you it's hang first, ask questions later.
> >
> > I suppose you think a jury would have exercised their right to
> > nullification had Oswald gone to trial. Jury nullication is nothing more
>
> No. I said a long time ago that Oswald would have been easily convicted in
> a Dallas court. Then a smart lawyer named Mark Lane would have written a
> book called I Accuse and turned it into a cause celebre and had the
> conviction thrown out by SCOTUS 12 years later, sparking a Congressional
> investigation which would prove conspiracy.
>

SCOTUS might well have vacated Oswald's death sentence as they did with
all pending death sentences but there is no way they would have vacated
his conviction. Assuming he was still alive, he would still be sitting in
a Texas prison with about as much chance of making parole as Charles
Manson.

> > than a jury deciding because of unique circumstances of the case not to
> > apply the law and acquit a defendant even when the evidence dictates they
> > were guilty. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that would have
> > happened.
> >
>
> Not in Dallas.
> Wade could convict a ham sandwich.

I keep wondering why you like that expression so much. It sounds really
stupid.

[Mark Florio]

Tony, I'm pretty sure you were talking about the window. But, regardless,
I don't get your last point. Are you saying "they" rearranged the boxes
to make it look like their patsy could not have done it?

Also, what evidence do you have that the boxes were not "originally
stacked that way"?

Mark

[mainframetech]

2 men, each with a gun were seen in the window of the TSBD at about
12:15. At the same time. Oswald was seen in the lunchroom, eating by
Carolyn Arnold. The gunmen were seen by Carolyn Walther and John Powell
And Ruby Henderson. Here's Walther's statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4

Chris

[mainframetech]

If you've fired a rifle with iron sights, you'll notice the scope is
screwed onto the rifle with the back end in a position that would get in
your face if you were trying to use iron sights. It might be do-able, but
difficult. Using one of 3 shots just for sighting in would be foolish.
Practicing beforehand would be wiser. But Oswald didn't do any practicing
with the MC rifle, or he would have discovered the faults in the rifle and
had them fixed before trying to kill a president.

It has also recently been shown that Oswald was in the lunchroom
through all the shooting, and was not at the window on the 6th floor.
There were 2 men seen there at 12:15, each with a gun. And they had no
reason to leave with JFK coming in just moments.

Chris

[donald willis]

It's reassuring to know that, if I misremember testimony, Anthony Marsh
will be there to correct me. I should know better than to rely on my
memory....

Brennan, yes, actually, testified that the suspect "sat sideways on the
window sill". Either way--"lying" or "sat sideways"--it's hardly the
action of a person trying to "conceal" himself! For some reason, the man
was trying to draw attention to himself. No one has ever been able to
explain that fact, LN or CT.... And yet we have no photos of this
exhibitionist in the "nest"--another inexplicability....

I notice that poor bigdog hasn't been able to reconcile his word
"concealment" with Brennan's "sat sideways on the window sill" (okay, my
erroneous "lying").... Okay, let's reconcile for him: The suspect sat
sideways on the window sill in order to conceal himself.
Hilarious....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

At 12:15. The shooting wasn't AT 12:15. DUH!

[David Von Pein]

Okay, Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

[bigdog]

She did not say the two men were together. The narrator claimed that but
those words never came out of her mouth. She only said the other man was
to the gunman's right which is perfectly consistent with BRW's position.
She did not say the other man was in the window with the gunman. The
interviewer tried to suggest that with one of his questions but she never
said the two were together. In addition, she described a single gunman. "I
saw this man with the gun...". She said "man with the gun", not "men with
the gun".

:

> So 2 men with 2 guns were seen in the window, and her time for that was
> 12:15pm.
>

You continue to embellish. Once again, she said "man with the gun", not
"men with guns". So according to her there she saw ONE man with ONE gun.

> Also at 12:15 was John Powell who saw 2 men 'fooling with a scope on a
> rifle' in the 6th floor window.
>

Powell? Oh yeah. The guy in the prison cell. The guy who came up with this
story many years after the fact. And you find him believealbe? You really
she invest in a good bullshit detector.

> So your silly contention is bullcrap. In BOTH case above, the 2 men
> were together, not separate.

According to your embellishment of your witness' story.

> Try again with some more of your baloney,
> now you're getting to the part where I said you would start making stuff
> up to try to get out of the corner you're in. And this most recent
> attempt was an example.
>

All the inventions have come from you. Your witnesses don't say what you
need them to say to make your point so you twist their words until they
fit your fairy tale.

>
>
> > > And
> > > the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.
> >
> > Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
> > were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
> > other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
> > that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.
> >
>
> First, there was NO embellishment, see above for the proof. Second,
> it's a reasonable assumption that neither of the 2 men with a rifle would
> leave the window with JFK imminent. Don't even begin to try to pretend
> differently.

You tell us there was no embellishment and then you repeat your
embellishment that there were two men in the same window with a rifle(s).

>
>
>
> > > Oswald at
> > > the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.
> >
> > A guess as to the time. There would have been no reason for her to mark
> > the exact time she saw Oswald there.
> >
>
>
> It was the usual educated guess, or possibly from looking at a watch or
> clock nearby. The EXACT time is not important based on the times we're
> dealing with here.
>

We are making progress. You have admitted it was just an educated guess.
Despite what you keep insisting, you need exact times to establish that
Oswald was somewhere else in the building that would have precluded him
being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. You continue to fail miserably in
trying to establish that.

You have embellished Carolyn Arnold's account as well. Marsh has some
crazy ideas but he is usually a reliable source of information. Per his
post earlier in this thread, the report of her interview stated:

"she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November
22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go
downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential
Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated that
she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in
the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading into the
warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure this was
OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes
before 12:15 PM. (CD5:41)"

So she did not say she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15. She said she
THOUHGT she saw Oswald on the first floor, not the lunchroom, some time
BEFORE 12:15. She was not sure of the time and she was not sure it was
Oswald. Great alibi you've give your boy.

>
>
> > > But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> > > after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> > > found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
> > >
> >
> > Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
> > whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
> > lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
> > him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> > lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> > theory.
>
> No, now you're doing what I said you would do, making stuff up. Baker
> didn't see Oswald entering the lunchroom,, he saw him through the window
> in the door, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had just
> come in, but it wouldn't matter since we know he wasn't at the window on
> the 6th floor!

He said Oswald was moving away from him. That is consistent with Oswald
not only entering the lunchroom from the landing but the lunchroom door
not having closed all the way behind him.

>
> Face it. You can make up baloney until the cows come home, but you
> won't get out of the corner you're in...:)
>

All the baloney is coming from you. You have tried to twist everyone's
statements to make it appear they have said something which they clearly
have not.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 2:12:06 PM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:

The kind of damage to the scope didn't come from throwing the rifle into
a plaaet of books. The scope needed 3 screw holes drilled and tapped to
be solid on the rifle. The gunsmith that did the work at Klein's had
little respect for the MC rifle, and probably did a slapdash job. Here's
his opinion of the rifle:

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

The army testers couldn't even sight in the rifle until they sent it to
the gunsmith, and he used 2 shims to get the scope positioned properly on
the rifle, then it could be sighted in. The problem wasn't one of
something bent of broken from mishandling.

Chris

[donald willis]

THat was my first response, too. But if Oswald was seen *anywhere* but
the "nest" between noon and 12:25 then there are big problems for LNers.
At least there are if you believe Bonnie Ray Williams' story that he,
Williams, was on the 6th floor about noon to have lunch and stayed there
until about 12:25, when he heard Norman & Jarman on the floor below.
That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?

It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
Can you spell "exoneration"?

dcw

[David Von Pein]

Regarding Carolyn Walther....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-960.html

[Edward Bauer]

The reason I believe the scope had not yet been damaged when Oswald fired
the three shots:

The rifle and scope were shipped halfway across the country three times
within five days-- Dallas PD to the FBI in DC, back to Dallas and back
again to DC for testing at Quantico on the 27th. It was not until the FBI
received it the second time that the damage was noticed, including a large
scrape on the scope where metal was removed. This major damage would have
been noticed if it had occurred earlier. See FBI firearms expert Robert
Frazier's WC testimony, 3H405-406. Even better, see pp. 125-127 of my
breakthrough book The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK
Assassination. Paperback: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1490350578
Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CPSBM7U

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. Don't make up false theories for me.
I think they wanted to make it look like a gun rest.

> Also, what evidence do you have that the boxes were not "originally
> stacked that way"?
>

Numerous articles and messages have been written about the rearranging
of the boxes.

> Mark
>

[Anthony Marsh]

It is so famous that everyone knows what it means. I just borrow it to
extend to the conviction.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you even know anything about Jiggle analysis? No, you heard it
somewhere and want to pretend to be educated. The jiggles would be about 5
frames after the shot. Can you show the jiggles in the Zapruder film? No,
you don't know how to upload files. You haven't read the HSCA studies. Do
you see jiggles in the Towner film?

To help you remember the jiggle spacing I'll repost my article:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com//headshot.txt


Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll
(c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh
Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993

As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot from
the grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect.
However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would
indicate that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at
Z-313 came from the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive
proof of a head shot from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of
circumstantial evidence which strongly suggest that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll. Some of the examples are well known, but need to be
reexamined.
The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot.
Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies, such
as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President Kennedy's
head around the time of the head shot. They note that President Kennedy's
head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite that as proof
of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and everyone else has
failed to do is analyze the movements of all the occupants of the rear
compartment of the limousine, including the Connallys. That is what I have
done.
My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is
not, unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film
as used in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements
in 1/60th of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder
frames 312 to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The
Grassy Knoll Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the
center of the window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front
edge of his reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the
reference line to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not
use unadjusted measurements from these prints to calculate precise
positions, but can estimate relative movements. This may be due to a
variety of factors, such as variations in printing and copying each frame,
changes in perspective, mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames
are too blurred to allow accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie
Connally's position is to the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of
John Connally's position is to the front edge of his forehead. Each
measurement of Jackie Kennedy's position is to the front edge of her
pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's position is to the edge of his hair
at the rear of his head. All measurements were lined up against the chrome
strip in the background for better contrast. Be sure to remember that
increasing measurements for the Connallys represent forward motion, while
increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent rearward motion. Notice
the direction and amount of movement of each person listed in Figure 1.
Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear compartment of the
limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all four were hit by
bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement must be caused
by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due to the limousine
having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his study [1] that
the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply
decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that
Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot off
the accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from
an average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head
shot. Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust
forward in relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further
evidence of this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move
forward while President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not
done a similar analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start
of the occupants' forward movement, so I would urge others to do so
themselves, in order to verify my results and observations. Figure 1.





Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z313 145 111 87 38 152
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z314 147 113 88 39 151
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z315 151 113 92 33 157
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z316 148 115 93 34 166
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4
rearward 11
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z317 150 117 100 30 177
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z319 153 122 NA 28 182
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 0 forward 4 forward 3
rearward 14
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z320 153 126 130 25 196
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z321 157 NA NA 26 195


Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my opinion,
the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest entirely on the
acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful for establishing
the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds after the
microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4 shots on the
tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and 145.61
respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and Aschkenasy to be
recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses which was rejected by
HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked at the waveforms more
closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of each shot was recorded,
to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate for each shot is 137.702,
139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can get a general idea of the
spacing between shots by subtracting one time from another. But there is an
additional variable which must be taken into account. BBN found that the
recorder used that day was running about 5% slow, so all times must be
multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore the original spacing. A more
accurate correction factor might be borrowed from the work which W&A did on
the grassy knoll shot. They found that a correction factor of 1.043 produced
the best fit for echo delays compared to their predicted model. Another
possible corroboration for the 1.043 correction factor is the 'bell' sound
found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd Vaughan believes that it is only
electrical interference, if we can determine its true frequency, we can
derive the most accurate correction factor. That holds true for many other
sounds on the tape, such as car horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN
found that the 'bell' sound had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to
the note A, which is usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might
have been tuned to A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was.
Most people have assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train
bell, a ship's bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a
couple of other possible tunings which would produce a correction factor
close to 1.043. If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament
scale, it might have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would
give us a correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an
old English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing
between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle
blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those into
Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames. Figure 2 is
a rough approximation of how many frames there were between all 5 muzzle
blasts.
Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and
depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the
bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as
matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first shot
after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President Kennedy
and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the last shot
with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the head shot came
from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll.



Figure 2.
origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame
TSBD 137.702 162 176
> 1.566 1.633 29.89
TSBD 139.268 192 206
> 1.071 1.117 20.44
TSBD 140.339 212 226
> 4.556 4.752 86.96
Knoll 144.895 299 313
> 0.713 0.744 13.61
TSBD 145.608 313 327

The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the first
shot is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and
clearly President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The
first shot was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at
around Z190- 192. The problem with that is that we can see President
Kennedy in the Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not
yet appear to be reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no
indication that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that
time, nor at about Z- 210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA
rejected.
My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the range
of Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of
Z-226 to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of
the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove
exactly when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their
back wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and
mine, regardless of other evidence.
Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as
matches with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the
TSBD as matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350
shows a crack on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6,
but is seen in Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot
from which direction caused that crack. I believe that I am the first
person to notice something in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you
look carefully at CE350, you will notice that the back of the rearview
mirror is dented, but you can see that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6.
This damage was caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield
from the inside and ricochetted into the rearview mirror. Many people
believe this fragment came from the head shot, which would been fired from
the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to the limousine, consisting
of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview mirror and dented chrome
topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find evidence which
pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show that it came
several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the Zapruder film,
Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the windshield was not
cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the last shot from
the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield. In turn, that
would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. I
seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when
the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered
photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could
only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented
at Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version
or mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA
admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll
shot was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the
impulses to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is
indicated in brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The
jiggle analysis measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To
simply and clarify, I have put the groups into ascending order. The group
with the largest amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B',
etc. I have chosen the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are
usually midway between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran
at 18.3 frames per second on average.

Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2

HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2


The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot
occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy knoll.
Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot
hit what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last
shot he heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact
had heard the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would
not, in and of itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the
dent could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would
narrow the range during which the chrome topping was dented to between
Z-313 to Z-331 and make it more likely that the chrome topping was dented
at the same time that the windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier
as some have speculated.
On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the
statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the
grassy knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the
direct path of gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that
the head shot came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the
TSBD. Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps leading up to the
pergola, said that the shots sounded as if they came from behind him,
above his head and to his left. That would place the origin near the
fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had come from behind him and
whistled past his right ear. Between these two witnesses and behind them
is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable shockwave at 24 ms.
before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot. Assuming the weapon was
aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough calculation of the velocity of
the bullet and the resultant angle of the shockwave. Although the
calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too difficult for me, a
rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet at about 1564.5
fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on either side
of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within the cone
of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly.
How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If it
had been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have
been outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not
have been recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can
be found in the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he
was shown a very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the
viewpoint was looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary
Moorman's position, the gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In
Moorman 2 we can see the head of a man peering over the fence, about 9
feet from the corner. Interestingly, this is the same spot where W&A
located the origin of the grassy knoll shot, unaware of the existence of
Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side view of any weapon as we
might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever this man was, he
moved from that position very quickly after the head shot. There is no one
there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton photograph, taken
shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has never been
analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were unaware of
its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I found it
at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to properly
analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might reveal the
presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher, Dale
Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a
person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner.
Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films.
Some fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize
the danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the
grassy knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave
whizzing past them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe
their reactions was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can
see Hudson and his two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola.
They do not seem to be reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see
that two of the men are reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men
would not have reacted to the sound of a shockwave coming from so close
behind them. If the grassy knoll shot was the miss before the head shot,
we would expect to see these men react before the head shot. The fact that
they did not react until after the head shot would seem to indicate that
the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is
more likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing
evidence can and should be examined further. More information can be
gleaned from existing data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data
could provide new clues and allow us to verify certain methods, such as
the acoustical studies. I urge other researchers to look for new evidence
and perform new analyses.

------
1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University
Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442.
2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16

[bigdog]

This conflicts with BRW's WC testimony. He said he was eating his lunch on
the 6th floor at noon and although he was unsure of the exact time, he
didn't think he was there for more than 10 or 12 minutes. He also said he
could not see into the sniper's nest from where he was because of the
boxes stacked in front of it so Oswald could easily have been laying in
wait there the whole time. I have no idea how long Oswald was there. I
have to believe he was there no later than 12:15 since that was the time
the motorcade was estimated to arrive. What we do know for certain is that
he was there at 12:30 to fire the shots that killed JFK.

> That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
> whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
> Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
> he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
> the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?
>

She said she thought she caught a glimpse of him on the first floor
shortly before 12:15 but she wasn't sure about either the time or that it
was Oswald she saw. It might have been Billy Lovelady she saw. Even if it
was Oswald, he could easily have gotten to the SN before JFK arrived.

> It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
> then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
> Can you spell "exoneration"?
>

Not at all. If Williams is even close in his estimate of the time he left,
Oswald would have had the 6th floor all to himself well before JFK
arrived.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Here's some more testimony from /Williams, who appears to have come down
to the 5h floor sooner than we might have thought:

"Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of
November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with
your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you
came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the
building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter
and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth
floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the
Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there
about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first,
they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said,
"Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't
remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes."

Chris

[mainframetech]

There is no doubt that Oswald would be exonerated in a trial. Much of
the evidence had its custody chain busted, which includes the body and the
limo, both of which were stolen from the proper venue and no chain of
custody was maintained on either. There was proof that Oswald wasn't in
the 6th floor window when the shots rang out.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:48:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 5:51:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > As well there were witnesses from the street that saw 2 men with a
> > rifle in the 6th floor window.
>
> Two men were seen on the 6th floor. Only one of them had a rifle. They
> were not together.
>

Don't bother attempting to correct me, you're usually wrong! Here's
the statement of Carolyn Walther. BOTH men had guns. One had a rifle and
the other had a short type of gun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4

The 2 men were together.

>
> > Sort of kills the 'lone gunman' wacky
> > theory of the WC lawyers...:) Also lets Oswald off the hook, since he was
> > seen in the lunchroom at the same time that the men were in the
> > window...:)
> >
>
> No it doesn't. The lone gunman had the rifle. The other guy didn't even
> know there was a gunman there because his testimony was that he couldn't
> see into the sniper's nest from where he was eating his lunch.
>

You're still trying to resurrect your foolish notion of Williams being
one of the men. WRONG as usual! He had left the area of the 6th floor,
and went to the 5th floor earlier. You have to let these fantasies go.
And Williams could easily see someone in the 'nest' when he stood up when
arriving or leaving the area. The '2 men' were also seen standing, so
they would be obvious over the boxes, based on the photo of the boxes.
So give up all your little efforts to get out of the corner you're in.

> Keep trying to bend the facts to force fit them to your silly beliefs.

I'm giving them to you straight. Perhaps your reading has faults. I'm
speaking of facts, not your fantasies.

Chris

[mainframetech]

From her statement its obvious that the 2 men were together. She said
they BOTH had guns, and that alone put them together. You're doing so
badly with this aspect of the case that you'll say anything (as predicted)
at this point.

Williams did not put anything of the kind into his testimony, and he
left earlier. He was perfectly capable of seeing the 2 men who were
standing, and even more so when he stood himself to arrive of leave the
area. Give it up. It's over.

> > So 2 men with 2 guns were seen in the window, and her time for that was
> > 12:15pm.
> >
>
> You continue to embellish. Once again, she said "man with the gun", not
> "men with guns". So according to her there she saw ONE man with ONE gun.
>

WRONG! You don't wish to watch the video of Walther's statement that
they BOTH had guns, so you'll have to believe me. Otherwise watch her
statement, and find a cheaper service to use.

> > Also at 12:15 was John Powell who saw 2 men 'fooling with a scope on a
> > rifle' in the 6th floor window.
> >
>
> Powell? Oh yeah. The guy in the prison cell. The guy who came up with this
> story many years after the fact. And you find him believealbe? You really
> she invest in a good bullshit detector.
>

You're not using your head once again. His story fits nicely with the
other stories we've heard. And a prisoner in a county lockup isn't one
who volunteers things to the cops.

> > So your silly contention is bullcrap. In BOTH case above, the 2 men
> > were together, not separate.
>
> According to your embellishment of your witness' story.
>

WRONG again! If you don't want to watch the videos then you'll have to
accept my word.

> > Try again with some more of your baloney,
> > now you're getting to the part where I said you would start making stuff
> > up to try to get out of the corner you're in. And this most recent
> > attempt was an example.
> >
>
> All the inventions have come from you. Your witnesses don't say what you
> need them to say to make your point so you twist their words until they
> fit your fairy tale.
>

I've twisted nothing. That's one of the things you reduced to having to
try getting away with. The witness's words are available online and can
be checked, which will show your errors.

> >
> >
> > > > And
> > > > the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.
> > >
> > > Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
> > > were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
> > > other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
> > > that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.
> > >
> >
> > First, there was NO embellishment, see above for the proof. Second,
> > it's a reasonable assumption that neither of the 2 men with a rifle would
> > leave the window with JFK imminent. Don't even begin to try to pretend
> > differently.
>
> You tell us there was no embellishment and then you repeat your
> embellishment that there were two men in the same window with a rifle(s).
>

The above video of Carolyn Walther says it clearly. Since you don't
want to watch it, you have no choice but to take my word for it. I can be
checked by watching the video. Or get someone else to look at it. In my
case, the service I use to connect to the internet has NO restrictions or
charges or how much I download.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > Oswald at
> > > > the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.
> > >
> > > A guess as to the time. There would have been no reason for her to mark
> > > the exact time she saw Oswald there.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It was the usual educated guess, or possibly from looking at a watch or
> > clock nearby. The EXACT time is not important based on the times we're
> > dealing with here.
> >
>
> We are making progress. You have admitted it was just an educated guess.
> Despite what you keep insisting, you need exact times to establish that
> Oswald was somewhere else in the building that would have precluded him
> being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. You continue to fail miserably in
> trying to establish that.
>

What time it is will always be an educated guess. Watch or not, no one
can have the EXACT time. Stop playing with generalities and phony
excuses. There's no need for EXACT time, and that's causing you to go
through contortions to complain and whine that EXACT times are needed.

> You have embellished Carolyn Arnold's account as well. Marsh has some
> crazy ideas but he is usually a reliable source of information. Per his
> post earlier in this thread, the report of her interview stated:
>
> "she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November
> 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go
> downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential
> Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated that
> she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in
> the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading into the
> warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure this was
> OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes
> before 12:15 PM. (CD5:41)"
>
> So she did not say she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:15. She said she
> THOUHGT she saw Oswald on the first floor, not the lunchroom, some time
> BEFORE 12:15. She was not sure of the time and she was not sure it was
> Oswald. Great alibi you've give your boy.
>

Ah! I see you were sucked in by the change that the FBI made in her
report. Here's some different evidence you might need to read that you
may not have known about:

"In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold
claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her
way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade .... She
left the building at 12:25pm." (Earl Golz, 'Was Oswald in Window?,' Dallas
Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF).

Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald "was sitting there ... in one of the
booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone
as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I
recognized him clearly." She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald
took place near the front doors: "Why would I be looking back inside the
building? That doesn't make any sense to me."

From: http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

And here's a different interview with Carolyn Arnold:

"The investigative journalist, Anthony Summers, also interviewed Carolyn
Arnold in late 1978. He quotes her as saying that "About a quarter of an
hour before the assassination, I went into the lunchroom on the second
floor", where she saw Oswald; see Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
The Assassination of JFK, Headline, 2013, p.92."

From: http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

Other information about Carolyn Arnold can be found on that same page.

>
> >
> >
> > > > But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> > > > after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> > > > found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
> > > whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
> > > lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
> > > him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> > > lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> > > theory.
> >
> > No, now you're doing what I said you would do, making stuff up. Baker

> > didn't see Oswald entering the lunchroom, he saw him through the window

> > in the door, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had just
> > come in, but it wouldn't matter since we know he wasn't at the window on
> > the 6th floor!
>
> He said Oswald was moving away from him. That is consistent with Oswald
> not only entering the lunchroom from the landing but the lunchroom door
> not having closed all the way behind him.

There was no statement that the door was swinging shut. Stop making up
junk and pretending you know something that you don't know. Seeing Oswald
in the manner that Baker did could also be "consistent' with any number of
other actions that Oswald was in the middle of. Like coming back from
looking out the window to see who was in the hallway.

> >
> > Face it. You can make up baloney until the cows come home, but you
> > won't get out of the corner you're in...:)
> >
>
> All the baloney is coming from you. You have tried to twist everyone's
> statements to make it appear they have said something which they clearly
> have not.

Accusing me of what your doing is a foolish mistake, because others are
not so nervous about looking at the video that shows what I'm saying was
the truth, and any other utterances of the witnesses are available as
well. So the only thing that will happen if someone wants to check is
that you'll look even sillier and be more embarrassed.


Oh, BTW...here's some more testimony from Williams, apparently he went
down to the 5th floor a bit sooner than we thought:

[mainframetech]

"iron sights' are not only at the end of the barrel. There is one also
at the receiver end too, to line up with the end of the barrel. The scope
sticks back a good ways if you check the WC photo of it (CE139) would get
in the way of a person aiming with the iron sights. If that weren't
enough, the bolt was also very sticky and took a shooter's aim off target
when working the bolt.

Also, Oswald has now been shown to have NOT been in the 6th floor window
of the TSBD. He was seen in the lunchroom at 12:15, and then just after
the shooting, he was also found there. At that same time, 2 men with guns
were seen in the window, and they had to be waiting for JFK, since there
were NO SS agents assigned there.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't see any problem and I detest LNErs. If I could attack them only
by making up false claims I'd rather not. They say enough stupid things
on their own that we shouldn't have to resort to that tactic.

> At least there are if you believe Bonnie Ray Williams' story that he,
> Williams, was on the 6th floor about noon to have lunch and stayed there
> until about 12:25, when he heard Norman & Jarman on the floor below.
> That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
> whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
> Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
> he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
> the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?
>

Which story? He changed it a couple of times. Which do you believe?
And when you say, "one would think" I know you're full of shit. No crime
is perfect. WIROGUE missed a flight and by the time he got to the Congo,
Lumumba had already been killed.

> It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
> then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
> Can you spell "exoneration"?
>

Can you spell, "desperation"?

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

None of that is true. You don't need to use all 3 screw holes.
And the damage was a dent on the outside of the tube and the crosshairs
knocked out of alignment. Why don't you read the damn documents some time?


Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all
the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of
the aiming point?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at
Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight
was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In
attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the
adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one
direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of
impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in
the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of
the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we
fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the
same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.
This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which
apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the
crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Mr. EISENBERG - Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of
the telescopic sight?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - I wonder whether you could show us that now to help
illustrate the point you are making.Let me mark that. This diagram was
prepared by you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG - And illustrated.
Mr. FRAZIER - Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a
textbook, showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring
is mounted in a telescope.
Mr. EISENBERG - This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of
the specific scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit
139 and found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and
received in evidence.)

Mr. FRAZIER - Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of
the manner in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139,
showing on the right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing
indicating the outer part of the tube, with an inner circle with a
crossed line in it representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the
crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand
portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up,
being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a
windage screw on the right-hand side of the scope tube circle which
adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows
diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which
causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was
shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in
merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then
fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this
spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided
it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as
windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not
be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets
down to the sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized and
fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to the
right.
Mr. EISENBERG - As I understand it, the construction of the scope is
such that after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope
does not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it
should be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of
the center of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the
crosshairs completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which
causes this spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for
this windage screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring
rather than at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw
being off center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not
strong enough to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is
necessary to jar it several times, which we did by firing, to bring it
to bear tightly so as to maintain the same position then for the next shots.
Mr. EISENBERG - And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the
crosshair, you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is
that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and
decided rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would
use these targets which we had fired.
Mr. EISENBERG - Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you
find that they stayed, remained stabilized?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they did.
Mr. EISENBERG - How long do you think the crosshairs would remain
stabilized in Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. FRAZIER - They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes
you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it
should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube
there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we
received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been
removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect
pre-existed November 27th?
Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing
high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly
well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area
the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have
occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to
say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely
when it was, introduced?
Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I
could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what
the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair
ring shifted.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last
test, could you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left
and have the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no
different from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the
center of the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you
would have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the
high right corner.
Mr. EISENBERG - If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a
bulls-eye pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you
have taken, to improve your score?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how
high the bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left,
or adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the
hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much practice had you had with the rifle before the
last series of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. FRAZIER - I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in
addition had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with
this weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be
accurately fired?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. EISENBERG - Would practice without actually firing the weapon be
helpful--that is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. FRAZIER - That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action
weapon, where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area
to the bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing
the bolt.
Mr. EISENBERG - Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think
three shots could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest
was utilized?
Mr. FRAZIER - That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or
needed-or which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that
length of time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch
circle without either resting or possibly using the sling as a
support--I doubt that you could accomplish that.
Mr. EISENBERG - How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100
yards--how do you think your time would have been affected by use of a
moving target?
Mr. FRAZIER - It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have
lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass
over the moving target.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give an amount?
Mr. FRAZIER - Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the
target was moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards
you or at right angles.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you think you could shorten your time with further
practice with the weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. FRAZIER - I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with
approximately a 3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch
spread at a hundred yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle
could be reduced to 6 inches or even less with considerable practice
with the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6
is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Mr. EISENBERG - I am now going to ask you several hypothetical questions
concerning the factors which might have affected the aim of the assassin
on November 22d, and I would like you to make the following assumptions
in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots
from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the
easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School
Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several
more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located

when the shots were fired.

Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175
feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet.
And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and
third shots was 5 1/2 seconds.
Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would
the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its
movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say he would have to lead approximately 2 feet
under both such situations. The lead would, of course, be dependent upon
the direction in which the object was moving primarily. If it is moving
away from you, then, of course, the actual lead of, say, 2 feet which he
would have to lead would be interpreted as a considerably less lead in
elevation above the target, because the target will move the 2 feet in a
direction away from the shooter, and the apparent lead then would be cut
to one foot or 12 inches or 8 inches or something of that nature, due to
the movement of the individual.
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you made calculations to achieve the figures you gave?
Mr. FRAZIER - I made the calculations, but I don't have them with me.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you supply these to us, either in further
testimony or by letter, Mr. Frazier?

> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>
> The army testers couldn't even sight in the rifle until they sent it to
> the gunsmith, and he used 2 shims to get the scope positioned properly on
> the rifle, then it could be sighted in. The problem wasn't one of
> something bent of broken from mishandling.
>

According to YOU, who has never handled a rifle?

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

You're the only one I've ever come across who thinks it's worth repeating.

[mainframetech]

The problem with the scope was the kind that comes from bad mounting.
Here's an idea of the opinion of the gunsmith that drilled and tapped the
2 holes for the screws when he should have made 3 holes:

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

That kind of an attitude would make for lazy lack of effort and fast
sloppy work. When the army got it, they had to send the rifle to the
gunsmith and he had to put in 2 shims to get the scope into the right
position so that it could sighted in. There was no problem with any
bending, scraping or other damage to the scope, it was just misaligned
from lack of care in mounting.

Chris

[Mark Florio]

I'm sure they have been. But articles and messages are not evidence to
back up your assertion. Mark

[bigdog]

This is revealing. Williams own estmate was that he left the 6th floor
sometime between 12:05 and and 12:15. That is quite a wide range and
indicates he may well have been one of the mean seen on the 6th floor by
the witnesses on the ground.

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:28:03 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:48:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 5:51:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > As well there were witnesses from the street that saw 2 men with a
> > > rifle in the 6th floor window.
> >
> > Two men were seen on the 6th floor. Only one of them had a rifle. They
> > were not together.
> >
>
>
> Don't bother attempting to correct me, you're usually wrong! Here's
> the statement of Carolyn Walther. BOTH men had guns. One had a rifle and
> the other had a short type of gun:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4
>
> The 2 men were together.
>

She does not say that. You say that. You never quote your witnesses. You
paraphrase (i.e. twist) what it was that they said.

>
>
> >
> > > Sort of kills the 'lone gunman' wacky
> > > theory of the WC lawyers...:) Also lets Oswald off the hook, since he was
> > > seen in the lunchroom at the same time that the men were in the
> > > window...:)
> > >
> >
> > No it doesn't. The lone gunman had the rifle. The other guy didn't even
> > know there was a gunman there because his testimony was that he couldn't
> > see into the sniper's nest from where he was eating his lunch.
> >
>
>
> You're still trying to resurrect your foolish notion of Williams being
> one of the men. WRONG as usual! He had left the area of the 6th floor,
> and went to the 5th floor earlier.

Your post right above this one quotes BRW as saying he got to the 6th
floor ABOUT noon and estimated the was there maybe 5, 10, of 15 minutes
which creates a wide range of time he could have been there.

> You have to let these fantasies go.
> And Williams could easily see someone in the 'nest' when he stood up when
> arriving or leaving the area.

How would he see a man kneeling or sitting behind the stacked boxes? Did
he have x-ray vision?

> The '2 men' were also seen standing, so
> they would be obvious over the boxes, based on the photo of the boxes.
> So give up all your little efforts to get out of the corner you're in.
>
> > Keep trying to bend the facts to force fit them to your silly beliefs.
>
>
> I'm giving them to you straight. Perhaps your reading has faults. I'm
> speaking of facts, not your fantasies.
>

No, you are doing your usual twistiing of the facts because those facts
don't support you.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyists love to say "obvious" when they make claims they
can't support with evidence.

> She said
> they BOTH had guns, and that alone put them together.

No she didn't. Why do you keep saying that? Anyone who listens to the
video you posted a link to can see for themselves she never said they both
had guns. She said one man had a gun.

> You're doing so
> badly with this aspect of the case that you'll say anything (as predicted)
> at this point.
>
> Williams did not put anything of the kind into his testimony, and he
> left earlier. He was perfectly capable of seeing the 2 men who were
> standing, and even more so when he stood himself to arrive of leave the
> area. Give it up. It's over.
>

Williams was very vague about what time he left. He said he got to the 6th
floor at noon. He said he stayed there maybe 5, 10, or 15 minutes. He
clearly had no clear idea how long he was on the 6th floor.

> > > So 2 men with 2 guns were seen in the window, and her time for that was
> > > 12:15pm.
> > >
> >
> > You continue to embellish. Once again, she said "man with the gun", not
> > "men with guns". So according to her there she saw ONE man with ONE gun.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You don't wish to watch the video of Walther's statement that
> they BOTH had guns, so you'll have to believe me. Otherwise watch her
> statement, and find a cheaper service to use.
>

It real is amazing you keep saying she said two men had guns when you
posted a video in which she only mentions one man with a gun. Quote her
words in which she says they both had guns. Can't do it? Didn't think
so.

It speaks volumes about the weakness of your position when you have to so
brazenly misrepresent the witnesses upon whom you are basing your
claims.

>
>
> > > Also at 12:15 was John Powell who saw 2 men 'fooling with a scope on a
> > > rifle' in the 6th floor window.
> > >
> >
> > Powell? Oh yeah. The guy in the prison cell. The guy who came up with this
> > story many years after the fact. And you find him believealbe? You really
> > she invest in a good bullshit detector.
> >
>
>
> You're not using your head once again. His story fits nicely with the
> other stories we've heard. And a prisoner in a county lockup isn't one
> who volunteers things to the cops.
>

Most of the people in county lockups are of questionable character.

>
>
> > > So your silly contention is bullcrap. In BOTH case above, the 2 men
> > > were together, not separate.
> >
> > According to your embellishment of your witness' story.
> >
>
>
> WRONG again! If you don't want to watch the videos then you'll have to
> accept my word.
>

I did watch the video because it was a short one and wouldn't eat up my
data allotment. That's how I know you are twisting Walthers' words. I
think you were counting on me not actually watching the video so I would
be forced to accept what you claimed about it. Surprise!!!

>
>
> > > Try again with some more of your baloney,
> > > now you're getting to the part where I said you would start making stuff
> > > up to try to get out of the corner you're in. And this most recent
> > > attempt was an example.
> > >
> >
> > All the inventions have come from you. Your witnesses don't say what you
> > need them to say to make your point so you twist their words until they
> > fit your fairy tale.
> >
>
>
> I've twisted nothing. That's one of the things you reduced to having to
> try getting away with. The witness's words are available online and can
> be checked, which will show your errors.
>

Yes they are which is what sinks your boat. You are betrayed by the very
witnesses who you tried to use to bolster your silly positions.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.
> > > >
> > > > Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
> > > > were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
> > > > other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
> > > > that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.
> > > >
> > >
> > > First, there was NO embellishment, see above for the proof. Second,
> > > it's a reasonable assumption that neither of the 2 men with a rifle would
> > > leave the window with JFK imminent. Don't even begin to try to pretend
> > > differently.
> >
> > You tell us there was no embellishment and then you repeat your
> > embellishment that there were two men in the same window with a rifle(s).
> >
>
>
> The above video of Carolyn Walther says it clearly. Since you don't
> want to watch it, you have no choice but to take my word for it.

You were so counting on me not watching that video. But I did which is why
I know how much you are embellishing Walthers' story.

> I can be
> checked by watching the video.

Yes it can and anyone who wants can watch it and see that one of us is
telling the truth about what Walthers' said and the other is named Chris.

> Or get someone else to look at it. In my
> case, the service I use to connect to the internet has NO restrictions or
> charges or how much I download.
>

Goodie for you.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Oswald at
> > > > > the same time was seen in the lunchroom by Carolyn Arnold at 12:15pm.
> > > >
> > > > A guess as to the time. There would have been no reason for her to mark
> > > > the exact time she saw Oswald there.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It was the usual educated guess, or possibly from looking at a watch or
> > > clock nearby. The EXACT time is not important based on the times we're
> > > dealing with here.
> > >
> >
> > We are making progress. You have admitted it was just an educated guess.
> > Despite what you keep insisting, you need exact times to establish that
> > Oswald was somewhere else in the building that would have precluded him
> > being in the sniper's nest at 12:30. You continue to fail miserably in
> > trying to establish that.
> >
>
>
> What time it is will always be an educated guess. Watch or not, no one
> can have the EXACT time. Stop playing with generalities and phony
> excuses. There's no need for EXACT time, and that's causing you to go
> through contortions to complain and whine that EXACT times are needed.
>

This is why you need exact times. If one witness can reliably establish
that two men were seen on the 6th floor at 12:15 and another witness can
reliably establish that Oswald was seen elsewhere at 12:15, you would have
made your point that Oswald was not one of the men on the 6th floor
because he could not be in two places at the same time. Unfortunately for
you, the witnesses could only guess at the approximate times they saw what
they did. So if Oswald was actually seen elsewhere in the building at
12:10 he could still be one of the men seen on the 6th floor at 12:15. Or
it could be that the two men were seen after 12:15. Or maybe both
estimates were off. On top of that, the witness who thought she saw Oswald
elsewhere in the building was not even sure it was Oswald she saw since
she only caught a glimpse of him on the first floor.

So you find the 15 year old account to be more reliable than what she said
shortly after the assassination. Of course you do. You're a conspiracy
hobbyist.

>
> And here's a different interview with Carolyn Arnold:
>
> "The investigative journalist, Anthony Summers, also interviewed Carolyn
> Arnold in late 1978. He quotes her as saying that "About a quarter of an
> hour before the assassination, I went into the lunchroom on the second
> floor", where she saw Oswald; see Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
> The Assassination of JFK, Headline, 2013, p.92."
>
> From: http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
>
> Other information about Carolyn Arnold can be found on that same page.

So your "star" witness has given two different accounts with times 10
minutes apart as to when she saw Oswald. And you still find her story to
be credible. Which version are you going with?

>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> > > > > after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> > > > > found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
> > > > whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
> > > > lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
> > > > him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> > > > lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> > > > theory.
> > >
> > > No, now you're doing what I said you would do, making stuff up. Baker
> > > didn't see Oswald entering the lunchroom, he saw him through the window
> > > in the door, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had just
> > > come in, but it wouldn't matter since we know he wasn't at the window on
> > > the 6th floor!
> >
> > He said Oswald was moving away from him. That is consistent with Oswald
> > not only entering the lunchroom from the landing but the lunchroom door
> > not having closed all the way behind him.
>
>
> There was no statement that the door was swinging shut.

There didn't need to be. If the door had already swung shut, he couldn't
have seen Oswald at all.

> Stop making up
> junk and pretending you know something that you don't know. Seeing Oswald
> in the manner that Baker did could also be "consistent' with any number of
> other actions that Oswald was in the middle of. Like coming back from
> looking out the window to see who was in the hallway.
>

So you admit you haven't established that Oswald was in the lunchroom the
whole time. You just shot down your boy's alibi.

BRW's testimony clearly shows he was unsure how long he was on the 6th
floor or what time he left. Why would he? Who keeps track of things like
that?

[bigdog]

The scope was offset to the left of the muzzle so it would not have
interferred with the iron sights. I happen to believe Oswald used the
scope but I have no way of knowing that for sure.

> Also, Oswald has now been shown to have NOT been in the 6th floor window
> of the TSBD. He was seen in the lunchroom at 12:15, and then just after
> the shooting, he was also found there. At that same time, 2 men with guns
> were seen in the window, and they had to be waiting for JFK, since there
> were NO SS agents assigned there.
>

This is where you insert your silly assumptions.

[donald willis]

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 6:16:21 PM UTC-7, big cut

> > > At 12:15. The shooting wasn't AT 12:15. DUH!
> >
> > THat was my first response, too. But if Oswald was seen *anywhere* but
> > the "nest" between noon and 12:25 then there are big problems for LNers.
> > At least there are if you believe Bonnie Ray Williams' story that he,
> > Williams, was on the 6th floor about noon to have lunch and stayed there
> > until about 12:25, when he heard Norman & Jarman on the floor below.
>
> This conflicts with BRW's WC testimony.

No, it doesn't. He testified that he went down to the fifth floor and
found Norman and Jarman already there (v3p171). Meanwhile, Norman
testified that he and Jarman were out front until the motorcade was
"coming down... Main", which would have been about 12:22. They then could
not have gotten in the back and arrived on the 5th floor before about
12:25.

He said he was eating his lunch on
> the 6th floor at noon and although he was unsure of the exact time, he
> didn't think he was there for more than 10 or 12 minutes. He also said he
> could not see into the sniper's nest from where he was because of the
> boxes stacked in front of it so Oswald could easily have been laying in
> wait there the whole time. I have no idea how long Oswald was there. I
> have to believe he was there no later than 12:15 since that was the time
> the motorcade was estimated to arrive. What we do know for certain is that
> he was there at 12:30 to fire the shots that killed JFK.
>
> > That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
> > whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
> > Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
> > he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
> > the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?
> >
>
> She said she thought she caught a glimpse of him on the first floor
> shortly before 12:15 but she wasn't sure about either the time or that it
> was Oswald she saw. It might have been Billy Lovelady she saw. Even if it
> was Oswald, he could easily have gotten to the SN before JFK arrived.
>

Not before about 12:26, when Williams would have gotten down to the 5th
floor. Pretty late for someone who plans some shooting....

> > It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
> > then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
> > Can you spell "exoneration"?
> >
>
> Not at all. If Williams is even close in his estimate of the time he left,
> Oswald would have had the 6th floor all to himself well before JFK
> arrived.

You're going by Williams' mental estimates. We have Norman's more exact
timing, which would leave Williams on the 6th floor until about 12:25,
which would almost preclude Oswald or anyone getting to the "nest" in time
to set up.... No one but Williams, it would seem, would have had the floor
all to himself between 12 & 12:25, which means that O would have to have
been as quiet as a mouse for some 25 minutes....

dcw

[BT George]

Bingo! And when you consider that the Walker miss must have already
introduced concerns in his mind about using the scope, I think it's doubly
likely he would have reverted to the iron sites.

Also, there is some indication in his military record that Oswald shot
better in rapid fire conditions---indicating a tendency to overthink his
shot. Once he missed that first shot instinct probably took over and he
once again displayed his aptitude for rapid fire.

BT George

[donald willis]

Again, this is just Williams' recollection. We have Norman's more exact
estimate. He testified (see my response to bigdog) that he and Jarman did
not even start back into the building until they heard on a (police?)
radio that the motorcade was on Main. According to Manchester, "Death of a
President", it was at Main & Ervay at 12:22--still 8 blocks before
Houston.... And Norman & Jarman were already on the 5th floor when
Williams found them. So that puts Williams on the 5th floor no earlier
than about 12:25

dcw

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 7:18:29 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/21/2015 9:50 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 5:50:57 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 6/20/2015 11:36 AM, mainframetech wrote:

> >>> On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 11:32:50 AM cut

> >>> Chris
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 12:15. The shooting wasn't AT 12:15. DUH!
> >
> > THat was my first response, too. But if Oswald was seen *anywhere* but
> > the "nest" between noon and 12:25 then there are big problems for LNers.
>
> I don't see any problem and I detest LNErs. If I could attack them only
> by making up false claims I'd rather not. They say enough stupid things
> on their own that we shouldn't have to resort to that tactic.
>
> > At least there are if you believe Bonnie Ray Williams' story that he,
> > Williams, was on the 6th floor about noon to have lunch and stayed there
> > until about 12:25, when he heard Norman & Jarman on the floor below.
> > That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
> > whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
> > Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
> > he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
> > the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?
> >
>
> Which story? He changed it a couple of times. Which do you believe?
> And when you say, "one would think" I know you're full of shit.

It is a badge of honor to be blasted by Anthony Marsh. Of course, pretty
much all of us have such badges....

No crime
> is perfect. WIROGUE missed a flight and by the time he got to the Congo,
> Lumumba had already been killed.
>
>
> > It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
> > then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
> > Can you spell "exoneration"?
> >
>
> Can you spell, "desperation"?
>

I can't tell if you mean mine or LNers....
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Also, it was a cheap scope. Made in Japan used to be an insult.
And it was physically damaged.

> Here's an idea of the opinion of the gunsmith that drilled and tapped the
> 2 holes for the screws when he should have made 3 holes:
>
> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>
> That kind of an attitude would make for lazy lack of effort and fast
> sloppy work. When the army got it, they had to send the rifle to the
> gunsmith and he had to put in 2 shims to get the scope into the right
> position so that it could sighted in. There was no problem with any
> bending, scraping or other damage to the scope, it was just misaligned
> from lack of care in mounting.
>
> Chris
>
>

Quick question, want a quick yes or no answer. Did that gunsmith add
another screw so that all three holes have screws now?


>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not true. Just stop repeating things that you know are not true.

> enough, the bolt was also very sticky and took a shooter's aim off target
> when working the bolt.

The Failure Analysis experts also found that using the scope took more
time to reacquire the target.

>
> Also, Oswald has now been shown to have NOT been in the 6th floor window
> of the TSBD. He was seen in the lunchroom at 12:15, and then just after

By whom at 12:15?

[mainframetech]

Here's some of Williams' testimony:

"Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir."


So The time for Williams is unsure, but seems to be less than previously stated. By simply standing up, Williams could see anyone in the 'nest', and he did that coming and going. One of the '2 men' seen in the window was standing.

> > That means there's a 25-minute block of time during which Oswald or
> > whoever could not enter or leave the 6th-floor. And if you believe
> > Arnold's story, then Oswald was downstairs at about 12:15, about the time
> > he would have to start planning, one would think, to ensconce himself in
> > the "nest"--the motorcade was due in Dealey about 12:25, right?
> >
>
> She said she thought she caught a glimpse of him on the first floor
> shortly before 12:15 but she wasn't sure about either the time or that it
> was Oswald she saw. It might have been Billy Lovelady she saw. Even if it
> was Oswald, he could easily have gotten to the SN before JFK arrived.
>

The FBI changed her statement so it would look less protective of Oswald. Here's the real statement from Carolyn Arnold in an interview:

"In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade .... She left the building at 12:25pm." (Earl Golz, 'Was Oswald in Window?,' Dallas Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF)."

Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald "was sitting there ... in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald took place near the front doors: "Why would I be looking back inside the building? That doesn't make any sense to me."

From: http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

Also in another interview:

"The investigative journalist, Anthony Summers, also interviewed Carolyn Arnold in late 1978. He quotes her as saying that "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination, I went into the lunchroom on the second floor", where she saw Oswald;" see Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime: The Assassination of JFK, Headline, 2013, p.92.



>

> > It's still possible--O starts up about 12:20, reaches the 6th floor,
> > then.... He tiptoes past Williams? Not really possible, after all....
> > Can you spell "exoneration"?
> >
>
> Not at all. If Williams is even close in his estimate of the time he left,
> Oswald would have had the 6th floor all to himself well before JFK
> arrived.

With the '2 men' seen in the window, each with a gun, there is no doubt they were waiting for JFK, since no agents were assigned to buildings. Oswald couldn't gain access to the window because the '2 men' with guns were there first to shoot JFK and weren't about to leave their nice shooters 'nest'.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Further, if anyone were in the 'nest' while Williams was there, he
would have seen them by simply standing up, which he did when he arrived
and left.

Williams testimony really left him there from 12:00 until no later than
12:15pm. Check the testimony.


Carolyn Arnold's statements was changed by the FBI to look less
protective of Oswald. She really saw him clearly in the lunchroom.
Here's the interviews:

"In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold
claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her
way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade .... She
left the building at 12:25pm." (Earl Golz, 'Was Oswald in Window?,' Dallas
Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF)."

Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald "was sitting there ... in one of the
booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone
as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I
recognized him clearly." She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald
took place near the front doors: "Why would I be looking back inside the
building? That doesn't make any sense to me."

From: http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

And another interview:

"The investigative journalist, Anthony Summers, also interviewed Carolyn
Arnold in late 1978. He quotes her as saying that "About a quarter of an
hour before the assassination, I went into the lunchroom on the second
floor", where she saw Oswald;" see Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime:
The Assassination of JFK, Headline, 2013, p.92.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The position of the scope was such that it would interfere with the
forehead of any shooter trying to use it. Look at CE 139 and check it
out. But even if a shooter found a way to look around the scope, the
sticky bolt would have put off the aim of any shooter and they would not
be able to use rapid firing. If we check in Dealey Plaza, there is NO
bullet from the MC rifle that actually hit or hurt anyone, and there is no
way to prove such a thing.

> > Also, Oswald has now been shown to have NOT been in the 6th floor window
> > of the TSBD. He was seen in the lunchroom at 12:15, and then just after
> > the shooting, he was also found there. At that same time, 2 men with guns
> > were seen in the window, and they had to be waiting for JFK, since there
> > were NO SS agents assigned there.
> >
>
> This is where you insert your silly assumptions.

Nope, Won't do. I do not need to insert anything. All the proof is
there and the situation is settled, Oswald was innocent of shooting at
JFK.

Chris

[mainframetech]

That phony rule applies to nothing. It's an opinion and carries no
weight here.

> > She said
> > they BOTH had guns, and that alone put them together.
>
> No she didn't. Why do you keep saying that? Anyone who listens to the
> video you posted a link to can see for themselves she never said they both
> had guns. She said one man had a gun.
>

WRONG! You can't even listen to a recorded video properly. Listen
again carefully. She said that the second man also has a gun, that was
"shorter than a rifle." It's getting bad for you when you begin to hear
things that aren't there and start making up things, like I predicted you
would...:)

> > You're doing so
> > badly with this aspect of the case that you'll say anything (as predicted)
> > at this point.
> >
> > Williams did not put anything of the kind into his testimony, and he
> > left earlier. He was perfectly capable of seeing the 2 men who were

> > standing, and even more so when he stood himself to arrive or leave the

> > area. Give it up. It's over.
> >
>
> Williams was very vague about what time he left. He said he got to the 6th
> floor at noon. He said he stayed there maybe 5, 10, or 15 minutes. He
> clearly had no clear idea how long he was on the 6th floor.
>

If we take Williams at his word, then he left at 12:15 or earlier.
That leaves time for the '2 men' to get in the window and be seen by
Carolyn Walther.

> > > > So 2 men with 2 guns were seen in the window, and her time for that was
> > > > 12:15pm.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You continue to embellish. Once again, she said "man with the gun", not
> > > "men with guns". So according to her there she saw ONE man with ONE gun.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You don't wish to watch the video of Walther's statement that
> > they BOTH had guns, so you'll have to believe me. Otherwise watch her
> > statement, and find a cheaper service to use.
> >
>
> It real is amazing you keep saying she said two men had guns when you
> posted a video in which she only mentions one man with a gun. Quote her
> words in which she says they both had guns. Can't do it? Didn't think
> so.
>

Go listen to the video carefully. You're WRONG yet again! Your
desperation is making you hear things that aren't there!

> It speaks volumes about the weakness of your position when you have to so
> brazenly misrepresent the witnesses upon whom you are basing your
> claims.
>

LOL! Give it up! You're cooked! You'll be spouting impossibilities
soon as I predicted.

> >
> >
> > > > Also at 12:15 was John Powell who saw 2 men 'fooling with a scope on a
> > > > rifle' in the 6th floor window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Powell? Oh yeah. The guy in the prison cell. The guy who came up with this
> > > story many years after the fact. And you find him believealbe? You really
> > > she invest in a good bullshit detector.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're not using your head once again. His story fits nicely with the
> > other stories we've heard. And a prisoner in a county lockup isn't one
> > who volunteers things to the cops.
> >
>
> Most of the people in county lockups are of questionable character.
>

Powell had NO reason to lie. It didn't give him any less time in jail
or ingratiate him to the cops or anything else. He didn't try to parlay
it into anything. Prove him wrong if you disbelieve him, but he fits with
the other statement of Carolyn Walther, who said '2 men' with guns.

> > > > So your silly contention is bullcrap. In BOTH case above, the 2 men
> > > > were together, not separate.
> > >
> > > According to your embellishment of your witness' story.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG again! If you don't want to watch the videos then you'll have to
> > accept my word.
> >
>
> I did watch the video because it was a short one and wouldn't eat up my
> data allotment. That's how I know you are twisting Walthers' words. I
> think you were counting on me not actually watching the video so I would
> be forced to accept what you claimed about it. Surprise!!!
>

I've stated what her words were, if you disagree, then come out with
what YOU think she said. If necessary, I'll give you the time in the
video to skip ahead to so you get the right part to watch, because of your
bad choice of a IP.

> > > > Try again with some more of your baloney,
> > > > now you're getting to the part where I said you would start making stuff
> > > > up to try to get out of the corner you're in. And this most recent
> > > > attempt was an example.
> > > >
> > >
> > > All the inventions have come from you. Your witnesses don't say what you
> > > need them to say to make your point so you twist their words until they
> > > fit your fairy tale.
> > >
> >
> >

> > I've twisted nothing. That's one of the things you're reduced to having to

> > try getting away with. The witness's words are available online and can
> > be checked, which will show your errors.
> >
>
> Yes they are which is what sinks your boat. You are betrayed by the very
> witnesses who you tried to use to bolster your silly positions.
>

The witnesses are there for anyone to check. You're getting to the end
of your 'making things up' phase. I expect you to come out with the wild
ideas next.

> > > > > > And
> > > > > > the men would not leave that position with JFK about to appear.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you are adding assumptions to your embellishment. Of the two men who
> > > > > were on the 6th floor, one(LHO) stayed until JFK arrived and the
> > > > > other(BRW) left to watch from the 5th floor. Those are the only two men
> > > > > that the evidence indicates were on the 6th floor between 12:00 and 12:30.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, there was NO embellishment, see above for the proof. Second,
> > > > it's a reasonable assumption that neither of the 2 men with a rifle would
> > > > leave the window with JFK imminent. Don't even begin to try to pretend
> > > > differently.
> > >
> > > You tell us there was no embellishment and then you repeat your
> > > embellishment that there were two men in the same window with a rifle(s).
> > >
> >
> >
> > The above video of Carolyn Walther says it clearly. Since you don't
> > want to watch it, you have no choice but to take my word for it.
>
> You were so counting on me not watching that video. But I did which is why
> I know how much you are embellishing Walthers' story.
>

Then you are unable to understand what she said. Her message is clear.
There were '2 men' BOTH with guns, and one was standing and one was
kneeling. Anyone can check it for you and tell you what they saw, so you
don't have to use that stupid IP of yours.

> > I can be
> > checked by watching the video.
>
> Yes it can and anyone who wants can watch it and see that one of us is
> telling the truth about what Walthers' said and the other is named Chris.
>

Thank you. I recommend that anyone watch the video, and here's the
link for it, which wasn't provided:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc

> > Or get someone else to look at it. In my
> > case, the service I use to connect to the internet has NO restrictions or
> > charges or how much I download.
> >
>
> Goodie for you.
>

No, it's a matter of finding a good service. Try it.

Well, here's the crashing of your whole story. Since the '2 men' with
guns were seen at approximately 12:15pm, from about that time then had
control of the window, and '2 men' with guns were there to kill JFK, not
seeing the sights, so they would be there through to 12:30pm and would do
the shooting. So they would stay there, and there's no way that Oswald,
who was seen at about that time could get to the window and appropriate it
to do his own shooting at 12:30pm. So much for your ridiculous story.

It doesn't matter, since the '2 men' were there before 12:30pm and were
there to shoot JFK, so they wouldn't leave their nice little 'nest' for
Oswald if he happened to appear there to try and get the window at
12:30pm!

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > But you knew all that, so why did you pretend you didn't know it? And
> > > > > > after the shots rang out, when Baker and Truly ran into the TSBD, they
> > > > > > found Oswald still in the lunchroom.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not still. Baker saw him going into the lunchroom. Had he been there the
> > > > > whole time, Baker could not have seen him through the small window in the
> > > > > lunchroom door. Oswald caught Baker's eye because he was moving away from
> > > > > him as Baker got to the second floor landing. He was not sitting in the
> > > > > lunchroom. You have to ignore this part because it doesn't fit your
> > > > > theory.
> > > >
> > > > No, now you're doing what I said you would do, making stuff up. Baker
> > > > didn't see Oswald entering the lunchroom, he saw him through the window
> > > > in the door, but there was no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had just
> > > > come in, but it wouldn't matter since we know he wasn't at the window on
> > > > the 6th floor!
> > >
> > > He said Oswald was moving away from him. That is consistent with Oswald
> > > not only entering the lunchroom from the landing but the lunchroom door
> > > not having closed all the way behind him.
> >
> >
> > There was no statement that the door was swinging shut.
>
> There didn't need to be. If the door had already swung shut, he couldn't
> have seen Oswald at all.
>

The door had a window in it. Stop the crap. You're at that stage I
predicted where you begin to cast around for any straw that might pull you
out of the swamp you're in!

> > Stop making up
> > junk and pretending you know something that you don't know. Seeing Oswald
> > in the manner that Baker did could also be "consistent' with any number of
> > other actions that Oswald was in the middle of. Like coming back from
> > looking out the window to see who was in the hallway.
> >
>
> So you admit you haven't established that Oswald was in the lunchroom the
> whole time. You just shot down your boy's alibi.
>

Nope, won't do. I merely gave you an example of the many things that
Oswald might have been doing when Baker saw him through the window in the
door.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Face it. You can make up baloney until the cows come home, but you
> > > > won't get out of the corner you're in...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > All the baloney is coming from you. You have tried to twist everyone's
> > > statements to make it appear they have said something which they clearly
> > > have not.
> >
> >

> > Accusing me of what you're doing is a foolish mistake, because others are

He was sure enough that it was before 12:15pm, and could have been a
LOT earlier. Plenty of time for the '2 men' with guns to get to the
window and keep that position to shoot at JFK when he rode by.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 5:27:47 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 9:28:03 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 7:48:21 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 5:51:22 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As well there were witnesses from the street that saw 2 men with a
> > > > rifle in the 6th floor window.
> > >
> > > Two men were seen on the 6th floor. Only one of them had a rifle. They
> > > were not together.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Don't bother attempting to correct me, you're usually wrong! Here's
> > the statement of Carolyn Walther. BOTH men had guns. One had a rifle and
> > the other had a short type of gun:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47e-jyZz0o4
> >
> > The 2 men were together.
> >
>
> She does not say that. You say that. You never quote your witnesses. You
> paraphrase (i.e. twist) what it was that they said.
>

She says that they both had guns, and it's clear from her witnessing
that they were together, and they were waiting for JFK. You could hear
every word she said if you were prepared to watch her video which I
supplied to you, but YOU chose not to look at it. That's your problem.
You'll just have to take my word for it. Here's the video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc

> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Sort of kills the 'lone gunman' wacky
> > > > theory of the WC lawyers...:) Also lets Oswald off the hook, since he was
> > > > seen in the lunchroom at the same time that the men were in the
> > > > window...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > No it doesn't. The lone gunman had the rifle. The other guy didn't even
> > > know there was a gunman there because his testimony was that he couldn't
> > > see into the sniper's nest from where he was eating his lunch.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're still trying to resurrect your foolish notion of Williams being
> > one of the men. WRONG as usual! He had left the area of the 6th floor,
> > and went to the 5th floor earlier.
>
> Your post right above this one quotes BRW as saying he got to the 6th
> floor ABOUT noon and estimated the was there maybe 5, 10, of 15 minutes
> which creates a wide range of time he could have been there.
>

It means he left there at 12:15 or before. Which was the time that the
'2 men' were seen by Walther. No opportunity for Oswald to intrude on the
'2 men' with guns that were in the window.

> > You have to let these fantasies go.
> > And Williams could easily see someone in the 'nest' when he stood up when
> > arriving or leaving the area.
>
> How would he see a man kneeling or sitting behind the stacked boxes? Did
> he have x-ray vision?
>

Looking at the boxes stacked 3 high, anyone could see men standing on
the other side of them, especially if they were standing themselves, which
Williams was doing when arriving or leaving.

> > The '2 men' were also seen standing, so
> > they would be obvious over the boxes, based on the photo of the boxes.
> > So give up all your little efforts to get out of the corner you're in.
> >
> > > Keep trying to bend the facts to force fit them to your silly beliefs.
> >
> >
> > I'm giving them to you straight. Perhaps your reading has faults. I'm
> > speaking of facts, not your fantasies.
> >
>
> No, you are doing your usual twistiing of the facts because those facts
> don't support you.

I've offered the real texts of any evidence available. If you can't
follow the simple logic of the situation that the '2 men' had the window
to themselves from about 12:15pm on, it's your problem.

State the specific sentence where you think I "twisted" the words, and
I'll be happy to explain to you what was meant. You've had many
opportunities to question, and to check the original statements of the
witnesses, and I don't know what else can be done to show it all to you.
You're just whining because you have no way out of the corner you painted
yourself into by saying that Oswald was at the window when he wasn't.

Chris