Interview with Carolyn Walther

[claviger]

JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
gunmen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
> gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp

Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes. A "man" in a
brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

They have cut out the context. She was talking about several minutes
before the shooting, not during the shooting. It may be that the man in
the brown suit was shooting a Carcano CARBINE from another open window on
the same floor. I don't think there is enough room for two shooters to
both be shooting from the sniper's nest window at the same time. The next
open window was #10 which is the one I suspect is the shot that was
rejected by the HSCA.

[Anthony Marsh]

Way to go. So your claim is the the second man was brown boxes and his
brown suit was merely brown boxes. And what was his shorter rifle? A broom
handle? Do you stay up late at night dreaming up these bizarre excuses?

BTW, did any of the manual laborers at the TSBD ever wear suits to work?
Especially when laying new flooring?

[Walt]

Jean Davison wrote:.... "Other witnesses were looking at that window"

That's not correct Jean...... Carolyn Walther clearly says that she was
looking at a window on either the "fourth or fifth floor". And since we
have photographic proof that three young black men were behind the fifth
floor window at the east end of the TSBD then that leaves only the fourth
floor where she saw the two men with a gun. We can be certain she wasn't
referring to the sixth floor because she specificially said that the
window where she saw the men was "about even with the top of that tree."

[claviger]

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jean,

Is there a colorized version of this photo? Is it really a person or
a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach
Inkblot Test?

OTOH, LHO did wear a brown shirt home after he escaped the TSBD that
some witnesses may confuse with a jacket.

[burgundy]

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Where?

[Walt]

C'mon....where's your imagination?

[Jean Davison]

Many witnesses got the floor wrong. You know that, Walt.
Walther said it was the corner window in the southeast corner:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm

Jean

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 10, 7:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
> > > gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp
>
> >             Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
> > time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes.  A "man" in a
> > brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:
>
> >http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
> >                                                         Jean
>
> Jean,
>
> Is there a colorized version of this photo?  Is it really a person or
> a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach
> Inkblot Test?

It's boxes, that's why I put "man" in quotes. In another
interview, Walther said she saw NO boxes anywhere in the building. Instead
she saw a "brown suit" from the shoulders to hips, no face, to the
gunman's right. Check the Dillard photo again. (There's no colorized
photo to my knowledge.)

Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like
Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time,
someone surrounded by brown boxes. She made an honest mistake, imo.

Jean

[charles wallace]

Jean,

Are you finally admitting that you see a man in the window in the Dillard
photo?

This man matches up with Lillian Mooneyham's account that she saw a man
there a moment or so after Dillard took his photo. In any event this
person that was seen in the window after the shots can not be Oswald. He
is on the second floor trying to buy a coke according to DPD M. Baker and
TSBD Roy Truly.

Charles

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

[John McAdams]

On 11 Apr 2013 12:22:07 -0400, charles wallace <chas1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So you think that some conspirator was hanging around in the Sniper's
Nest for 4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting?

Just lolling around. Never occurred to him that he needed to get the
hell out of there.

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[charles wallace]

Claviger,

Okay you see the guy also but you want to claim it is not real unless
everyone agrees that it is Oswald. No bias in your evaluations of this
case, eh?

Charles

http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK

[claviger]

On Apr 10, 7:56 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:

Look behind the intersection of the horizontal and vertical muntin
(grille) on the upper left window. You can make out a face with the
nose just to the right of the vertical bar. He has slanted eyes and
pointed ears like a Vulcan. You can also see the slope of the
shoulders.

[claviger]

On Apr 11, 11:25 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2013 12:22:07 -0400, charles wallace <chas112...@gmail.com>

We know Oswald showed up in the lunchroom in the same length of time it
took Truly and Baker to reach the same place. LHO was going downhill so
could move quicker than two guys climbing uphill. Is it possible LHO
lingered to assess the results of his ambush and see the terrified
reaction of the crowd? He was striking a blow for Marxist ideology so
maybe he wanted to enjoy the moment. Was the photo taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/11/2013 11:29 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
>>>> gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp
>>
>>> Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
>>> time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes. A "man" in a
>>> brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:
>>
>>> http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
>>> Jean
>>
>> Jean,
>>
>> Is there a colorized version of this photo? Is it really a person or
>> a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach
>> Inkblot Test?
>
> It's boxes, that's why I put "man" in quotes. In another
> interview, Walther said she saw NO boxes anywhere in the building. Instead
> she saw a "brown suit" from the shoulders to hips, no face, to the
> gunman's right. Check the Dillard photo again. (There's no colorized
> photo to my knowledge.)
>

Exactly. So tell us what type of boxes walk around holding a rifle.
Was that the famous UPS monster movie?

> Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like
> Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time,
> someone surrounded by brown boxes. She made an honest mistake, imo.
>

But aren't you trained to call all conspiracy witnesses liars?

> Jean
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/11/2013 11:29 AM, Jean Davison wrote:

Right and Euins made an honest mistake, you won't admit that.
And Brennan made an honest mistake, but you won't admit that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Duh! I've only said that about 45 million times. So I must be the kook
while you are the expert.

[Walt]

Jean.....It's clear to me that Carolyn Walthers was referring to the
fourth floor as the place she saw the two men about a quarter hour before
the shooting. She said that the window was even with the top of that
tree, and as you've just pointed out she saw NO boxes. I believe the
significance of her story is she saw what many other witnesses assumed was
a security detail for JFK. She saw them on the fourth floor and that's
where Officer Marrion Baker encountered a man wearing a light brown
Jacket. I don't know what to make of Walther's story...but I don't
dismiss her as being mistaken.

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

In fact, according to Dillard, he shot his photos almost immediately after
the last shot...........

Mr. BALL - Did you hear something unusual as you were driving north on
Houston?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes; I heard an explosion which I made the comment that I
believe, in my memory, I believe I said, "My God, They've thrown a torpedo"
and why I said "torpedo", I don't know. If you wish, I'll go ahead -
Mr. BALL - Go ahead with your story.
Mr. DILLARD - Well, then I later estimated, immediately later, estimated,
oh, 4, about 3 or 4 seconds, another explosion and my comment was, "No,
It's heavy rifle fire," and I remember very distinctly I said, "It's very
heavy rifle fire."
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
Mr. BALL - What is your best estimate of the position of your car with
reference to the turn at Main and Houston when you heard the first
explosion?
Mr. DILLARD - Perhaps, oh, just a few feet around the corner and it seems
we had slowed a great deal. It seems that our car had slowed down so that
we were moving rather slowly and perhaps just passed the turn when I heard
the first explosion.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anyone in your car say anything?
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They
killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some
running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we
were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School
Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said,
"There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready.
He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open
windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought
my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the
third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then
he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung
t it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera,
100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily
photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a
considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid
sequence with the two cameras.

============================================

In fact Bob Jackson's comment points to the SE window of the sixth floor
and he sees two figures on the floor below.

There isn't anything to support a 4 1/2 to 5 minute time-frame. The
evidence points to only perhaps less than a minute after the last shot.

When you add that to the Powell photo you encounter a very difficult
evidentiary conundrum.

John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:5166e369....@news.supernews.com...

[John McAdams]

On 11 Apr 2013 18:56:29 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>.John:
>
>I don't know about "4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting" but I do know
>this:
>
>According to the HSCA.....
>
>"There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last
>shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109).
>
>Attached the Dillard (left) and the Powell (right) supposedly taken within
>2 mins of ea. other.
>
>This has always created a difficult scenario to reconcile. (For me,
>anyway)
>
>John F.
>

It's difficult to reconcile without saying that the HSCA made a
mistake.

Back in the 1990s, Dale Myers did a 3-D model of the Sniper's Nest and
found that there was in fact no inconsistency.

I'm not aware of any online version of that recreation. If anybody
knows, maybe they can chime in.

I find the "moved boxes" business questionably simply because I can't
see why *anybody,* Oswald or a conspirator, would fool around with the
boxes.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 11 Apr 2013 22:00:01 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

The claim was that this vindicated Mooneyham.

She is the one who said 4 1/2 to 5 minutes.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144730

I think you are addressing a slightly different issue. I think we can
lay aside the notion that she saw anybody in the Sniper's Nest in that
time frame. Maybe she was wrong about the time. Or maybe about the
window in which she saw the person.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

Jean:

But that's not all Walther saw, was it?

Here's a text copy of her FBI interview................

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 12/5/63

Mrs. ERIC (CAROLYN) WALTHER, 4118 Shelley, Dallas, Texas, Stated she is
employed in the cutting room for Miller and Randazzo, a dress factory, on
the third floor of the Dal-Tex Mart Building, 501 Elm Street, Dallas.

On November 22, 1963 she and another employee, Mrs. PEARL SPRINGER, ate
lunch at 12:00 noon and left the lunch room at about 12:20 PM to go down
on the street to see President KENNEDY ride by. They walked out of the
front door of the building, crossed the street, and stopped at a point on
the east side of Houston Street, about fifty or sixty feet south of the
south curb of Elm Street. They stopped next to the curb to await the
passing of the President. While standing there, she started looking
around, and looked over toward the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)
Building. She noticed a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt
leaning out a window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window
of the third floor. Shortly after this, a man in the crowd across the
street to the west of where she was standing apparently had an epileptic
seizure, and an ambulance came by and took the man away. Shortly after the
ambulance left, she looked back towards the TSBD Building and saw a man
standing on either the fourth of fifth floors, of the window on the south
side of the building, which faces toward Elm Street. This man had the
window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands
extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a
rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on
Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light
brown hair. She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man
there a few moments previously when she looked toward the building and
thought that apparently there were guards everywhere. The rifle had a
short barrel and seemed large around the stock or end of the rifle. Her
impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She noticed nothing like a
telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap or sling on the rifle. She
said she knows nothing about rifles or guns of any type, but thought that
the rifle was different from any she had ever seen. This man was standing
in about the middle of the window. In this same window, to the left of
this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of
the man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was
above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she
could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was
not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a
brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of
the man, from about the waist to the shoulders.

Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the other
man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said "Here they come." and
she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to see the
Presidential Party. As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed where she
was standing, she and Mrs. SPRINGER turned away and started walking north
towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the curb at Elm Street,
she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks. There was a pause
after the first report, then a second and third report almost at the same
time, and then a pause followed by at least one and possibly more reports.
The noise seemed to come from up in the air, but she never looked up in
that direction. When the second report sounded, she decided it was
gunfire, so she and Mrs. SPRINGER started diagonally across the street
toward the TSBD Building. About the time she got across the street, she
heard someone yell that the president had been hit. She stopped a moment
and listened to the police radio on a motorcycle, then returned to the
building across the street where she works. She returned to her job at
about 12:45 PM.

on 12/4/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agent C. RAY HALL AND MARGIE J. WHITE Date Dictated 12/5/63

John F.


"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a4569e6-bd6b-4601...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

[burgundy]

On Apr 10, 7:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Where's the brown jacket?

[Walt]

Silly!......

[John Fiorentino]

Oh, I think the HSCA made several mistakes.

I haven't seen Dale Myers work on this, but I'm generally not impressed by
him.

I don't think the HSCA PEP screwed this up. I mean take a good look at the
Powell photo, it's rather apparent to me anyway. Everything I've read and
researched on this by the HSCA seems to be well done.

As to why?....... That doesn't dissolve the issue in my mind. Especially
if the evidence seems to indicate the event happened.

I could speculate on the why, but that really isn't relevant.

While I'm not a CT as you know, I'm not in denial either.

John F.


"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:roqem89q46sfu8q71...@4ax.com...

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

I think perhaps it is you who is addressing a slightly different issue.

1. I was addressing the Dillard photo (I personally don't believe it shows
anyone in that window)

You said...............

"So you think that some conspirator was hanging around in the Sniper's
Nest for 4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting?

Just lolling around. Never occurred to him that he needed to get the hell
out of there."

I pointed out that Dillard didn't take his picture in that timeframe. So,
man or no man in the window, we're not looking at 4 1/2 to 5 mins. after
the last shot.

Personally, I fail to see the connection with Mooneyham, who in my mind
needs no vindication for anything. She may have seen what she claimed
without any relation to a conspiracy.

John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:3tqem89p4os72uhh6...@4ax.com...

[claviger]

Since the photo is not colorized all I can tell is it is a medium dark
shade in what appears to be a long sleeve shirt. Not a white T-shirt. I
can't be sure it is a person but I do see why some would think so. LHO
wore a brown long sleeve shirt that day.

[Jean Davison]

Walthers said it was the southeast corner window. Was she
mistaken about that? The corner window on the 4th floor was closed, I
believe.

Jean

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 11, 9:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Jean:
>
> But that's not all Walther saw, was it?

John, I don't understand what you're referring to.

Jean

> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:6a4569e6-bd6b-4601...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 7:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
> > > > gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp
>
> > > Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
> > > time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes. A "man" in a
> > > brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:
>
> > >http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
> > > Jean
>
> > Jean,
>
> > Is there a colorized version of this photo? Is it really a person or
> > a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach
> > Inkblot Test?
>
>           It's boxes, that's why I put "man" in quotes.  In another
> interview, Walther said she saw NO boxes anywhere in the building. Instead
> she saw a "brown suit" from the shoulders to hips, no face, to the
> gunman's right.  Check the Dillard photo again.  (There's no colorized
> photo to my knowledge.)
>
>            Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like
> Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time,
> someone surrounded by brown boxes.  She made an honest mistake, imo.
>

> Jean- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 11, 8:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 11:29 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 7:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
> >>>> gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp
>
> >>>              Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
> >>> time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes.  A "man" in a
> >>> brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:
>
> >>>http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
> >>>                                                          Jean
>
> >> Jean,
>
> >> Is there a colorized version of this photo?  Is it really a person or
> >> a combination of dirty windows and imagination, as in the Rorschach
> >> Inkblot Test?
>
> >            It's boxes, that's why I put "man" in quotes.  In another
> > interview, Walther said she saw NO boxes anywhere in the building. Instead
> > she saw a "brown suit" from the shoulders to hips, no face, to the
> > gunman's right.  Check the Dillard photo again.  (There's no colorized
> > photo to my knowledge.)
>
> Exactly. So tell us what type of boxes walk around holding a rifle.
> Was that the famous UPS monster movie?

She didn't say Brown Suit man was holding a rifle or walking
around.

>
> >             Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like
> > Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time,
> > someone surrounded by brown boxes.  She made an honest mistake, imo.
>
> But aren't you trained to call all conspiracy witnesses liars?
>

Obviously not!
Jean

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 10, 7:56 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:

Walther's testimony has to be evaluated in the context of the
other evidence. Wouldn't you agree? If she is right and there were two
men in a southeast corner window and no boxes, what do you make of the
testimony of the other witnesses, like Edwards and Fischer:

>>>
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room
of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.
Mr. BELIN. You say on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
.......
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
[VI, 203-204]

>>>>
Mr. BELIN. Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER. There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the
bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. .... [IV,
194]
<<<<<

Fischer, Edwards, Brennan, Euins saw one man and boxes in the SN
window. Photos show boxes where Walthers said she saw a second man's
brown jacket. They were all looking up there just before the motorcade
arrived. They're all wrong and she's right?

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Because the DPD were morons and trying to recreate a bench rest for the
rifle.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So? There is no one in the window.

[John Fiorentino]

Jean

I'll address both of your posts here:

In response to me you said: "John, I don't understand what you're
referring to."

(excerpts)

Answer: Walther indicated ; She noticed a man wearing a brown suit and a

very dark shirt leaning out a window of the third floor, somewhere about

the middle window of the third floor. (HER FIRST OBSERVATION)

Then: she looked back towards the TSBD Building and saw a man standing on

either the fourth of fifth floors, of the window on the south side of the
building, which faces toward Elm Street. This man had the window open and
was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended
outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with
the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston
Street.

These observations were made when Walther was standing on the East side of
Houston St. approx 20 yards South of Elm. "Shortly" after making her last
observation, the President's limo passed by. She then walked up to Elm
with Springer.

About when she got to Elm, she heard the first shot.

So, (though I don't think she was accurate) she *could* have made her
observations, which had nothing to do with the sixth floor and boxes.

John F.






"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1a2ab4a2-b526-43da...@l5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

[Walt]

Yes the SE corner window on the 4th floor was closed and the blinds
closed AT THE TIME of the shooting....Was it closed at the time
Walther's saw the men?

[Walt]

Jean.... Walther's could NOT have been referring to the sixth floor
window because there wasn't enough room for two men to stand there
between the boxes and the window .

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room
of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.

"CROWDED IN AMONGST BOXES"

Walther's saw no boxes..... and her account indicates that the men
were further back in the room not imediately behind the window. I
think you're going to have to concede that the men were NOT on the
fifth or sixth floor, just as you've had to concede that the CE 543
(the dented shell) was not dented by any action during the firing of,
or ejecting that spent shell.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/12/2013 10:06 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:56 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 8:27 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> JFK assassination witness Carolyn Walther describes seeing 2 different
>>>> gunmenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o_ZYa_nK-Gc&feature=fvwp
>>
>>> Other witnesses were looking at that window during the same
>>> time frame and saw only one man surrounded by brown boxes. A "man" in a
>>> brown jacket appears in the Dillard photo:
>>
>>> http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj306/quaneeri2/DillardA.jpg
>>> Jean
>>
>> Where?
>
> Walther's testimony has to be evaluated in the context of the
> other evidence. Wouldn't you agree? If she is right and there were two

No, that's not the WC defender credo.

> men in a southeast corner window and no boxes, what do you make of the
> testimony of the other witnesses, like Edwards and Fischer:
>

Why do you assume that everyone saw exactly the same thing at the same
time? This is why witness statements can be all over the map.

>>>>
> Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
> Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room
> of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.
> Mr. BELIN. You say on the sixth floor?
> Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
> .......
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
> Mr. EDWARDS. No.
> [VI, 203-204]

Maybe the only one who know which was the sixth floor.

>
>>>>>
> Mr. BELIN. Could you see any other objects in the window?
> Mr. FISCHER. There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the
> bottom to the top and from the left to the right behind him. .... [IV,
> 194]

Compare the angles of view. Maybe it was easier to see some deals from
headon than from an angle.

> <<<<<
>
> Fischer, Edwards, Brennan, Euins saw one man and boxes in the SN
> window. Photos show boxes where Walthers said she saw a second man's
> brown jacket. They were all looking up there just before the motorcade
> arrived. They're all wrong and she's right?
>

Maybe they looked at a different time.

> Jean
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Explain how the boxes can hold a rifle without any hands.

>>
>>> Walther's story doesn't wash because other witnesses like
>>> Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan saw ONE man in the window during this time,
>>> someone surrounded by brown boxes. She made an honest mistake, imo.
>>
>> But aren't you trained to call all conspiracy witnesses liars?
>>
>
> Obviously not!
> Jean
>

That's what most WC defenders do.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do most people even know the difference between east and west? Never
rely on witnesses.

> Jean
>

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 12, 8:20 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> She [Carolyn Walther] didn't say Brown Suit man was holding a rifle.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Yes she did, Jean. Walther told CBS News in 1967 that BOTH men she saw
> in the TSBD were holding guns. Go to 19:40 of Part 3 of the video
> series below:
>
> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-...

I couldn't locate it there, David. Could you possibly give me
a quote? In the FBI doc and another interview quoted by Josiah Thompson,
she says the other man had the rifle.

Jean

[David Von Pein]

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

She [Carolyn Walther] didn't say Brown Suit man was holding a rifle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Yes she did, Jean. Walther told CBS News in 1967 that BOTH men she saw

in the TSBD were holding guns. Go to 19:40 of Part 1 of the video
series below:

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I couldn't locate it there, David. Could you possibly give me a
quote?" <<<

Sorry, Jean. I gave you the wrong part number for the video. My error. The
Walther interview is in Part 1, not Part 3. ....

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

[Walt]

Tony asked a pertinent question....."Do most people even know the

difference between east and west?"

I believe "most" people do know east from west......But all of us
become disorientated at times..... especially in unfamiliar
surroundings. Many of the witnesses in Dealey did NOT know east
from west or north from south.....I doubt that Amos Euins and James
Worrell knew which direction the TSBD faced.


>
> >                                             Jean

[Jean Davison]

> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-...

I don't hear her saying that both men had guns, though it's
hard to follow at times. She said the second man had on a "brown suit"
and "all I could see" was half of his body from the shoulders to the hips.
I think she could've easily misinterpreted the boxes in the Dillard photo:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/0c/Pict_essay_thomasbugfritz_3_dillard_lrg.jpg

The corner windows on the 4th and 5th floors were closed (same
picture, larger view):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/dillardd.jpg

Of course, I know you've seen that photo a thousand times,
just trying to illustrate the point again.

Jean

[John Fiorentino]

David:

You're mistaken about this. She never indicates BOTH men had a rifle.

In fact her statements are remarkably in tune with her FBI interview.

I used to listen to depositions, etc. quite frequently during my law firm
years. It's not easy sometimes when you're not asking the questions.

In any event, listen again, then read her FBI interview.

Jean, you are correct.

John F.



"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c0405f41-bca3-4013...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Thank you for setting Jean straight. Good to see a WC defender honest
enough to agree with me and refute the WC defenders who attack me
mindlessly.

But I have to admit that I liked her idea. I've seen some of those video
pranks where someone dresses up like UPS boxes to surprise people.

[Anthony Marsh]

You've been correct three times now. Shouldn't you just cut your loses and
move on? And maybe learn a lesson and not just mindlessly attack me
without doing an actual research?

Now, please explain again how the boxes walk around holding the rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like the cops who were in there investigating the sniper's
nest?

> Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
> Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room
> of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.
>
> "CROWDED IN AMONGST BOXES"
>
> Walther's saw no boxes..... and her account indicates that the men
> were further back in the room not imediately behind the window. I
> think you're going to have to concede that the men were NOT on the
> fifth or sixth floor, just as you've had to concede that the CE 543
> (the dented shell) was not dented by any action during the firing of,
> or ejecting that spent shell.
>

The Dillard photo and Powell photo show boxes.
No one ever conceded anything to you.

[David Von Pein]

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

I don't hear her saying that both men had guns.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

You may be right. Mrs. Walther might have been talking about seeing
TWO men with ONE gun. But it is a bit muddled and unclear.

And, of course, we know she didn't really see two men in that window--
period. So she is simply mistaken on that point in the first place.

[Walt]

What part of "fourth or fifth floor" are you having a difficult time
in understanding? Mrs Walthers specifically said she saw the men on
either the "FOURTH or FIFTH" floor. She may have seen Bonnie Ray
Williams, and Junior Jarman with a caulking gun. She said that she
had never seen a gun like the one the man was holding
before.......

[John Fiorentino]

David:


David says............

"And, of course, we know she didn't really see two men in that window--
period."

I say..............

You "know" that do you?

John F.



"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:43f716ac-906b-4433...@p12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

But I still like her idea that the brown suit was the brown boxes
holding a rifle.
Now, can you explain for me how the SECOND gun being shorter then than
the first gun equals only one gun? Maybe you think it was a take apart gun.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/13/2013 11:32 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> David:
>
> You're mistaken about this. She never indicates BOTH men had a rifle.
>
> In fact her statements are remarkably in tune with her FBI interview.
>
> I used to listen to depositions, etc. quite frequently during my law
> firm years. It's not easy sometimes when you're not asking the questions.
>
> In any event, listen again, then read her FBI interview.
>
> Jean, you are correct.
>
> John F.
>

I wonder what she meant by the "shorter" rifle?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/13/2013 11:29 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:44 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "I couldn't locate it there, David. Could you possibly give me a
>>
>> quote?" <<<
>>
>> Sorry, Jean. I gave you the wrong part number for the video. My error. The
>> Walther interview is in Part 1, not Part 3. ....
>>
>> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-...
>
> I don't hear her saying that both men had guns, though it's
> hard to follow at times. She said the second man had on a "brown suit"

Careful, you almost conceded that she was talking about two men.
I like your way out of this by claiming that the second man was just
boxes. Why don't you make both men boxes? The famous Box rebellion.
Attack of the Box Men.

> and "all I could see" was half of his body from the shoulders to the hips.
> I think she could've easily misinterpreted the boxes in the Dillard photo:
>

As usual for WC defenders your only way out is to claim that the witness
is a kook when she says anything that even hints at conspiracy.

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony:

You really can't get anything right can you?

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5169948b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Walt]

Duh!...see page 536 of Pic of the Pain...... There's a photo of detective
Studebaker squeezed in the small space between the boxes and the window.
Are you really prepared to make a bigger fool of yourself by arguing that
Walthers could have see two men in that tiny area??

>
> >    Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
> >    Mr. EDWARDS. .... one individual who was up there in the corner room
> > of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.
>
> > "CROWDED IN AMONGST BOXES"
>
> > Walther's saw no boxes.....  and her account indicates that the men
> > were further back in the room not imediately behind the window.     I
> > think you're going to have to concede that the men were NOT on the
> > fifth or sixth floor, just as you've had to concede that the CE 543
> > (the dented shell) was not dented by any action during the firing of,
> > or ejecting that spent shell.
>
> The Dillard photo and Powell photo show boxes.
> No one ever conceded anything to you.

Dead silence is conceding...... An intelligent person knows when to
concede by shutting their mouth after their point has been disproved.....
The fact that you never concede....says what?

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony says...............

"Now, can you explain for me how the SECOND gun being shorter then than
the first gun equals only one gun? Maybe you think it was a take apart
gun."

I say..............

Why don't you learn how to read??

There was NO talk of a second gun by Walther.

John F.







"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:516ad5e0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

I wonder why you can't read!

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:516a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Jean Davison]

That's not what she said.

She said one of the men "was holding a short gun. It wasn't
as long as a rifle." That's "A" not "THE" rifle -- which wouldn't
implied a second gun.

Josiah Thompson quotes another interview (1966) which makes
it clearer.

QUOTE:

Mrs. Walther:... The man that was holding the gun was partially
leaning out, just slightly, and he had his forearms on the window and
it was not a long rifle. This was a short gun. Not a pistol. I had
never seen one like it. The other man was standing beside him, but I
could only see a part of his face, and he was dressed in brown.

Interviewer: And was he holding anything?

Mrs. W: Not that I could see.

UNQUOTE

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, of course, we know she didn't really see two men in that window--
period.

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

You "know" that do you?

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

If she's really referring to the SIXTH floor--yes. I do know that.
Don't you?

And if she's referring to the fourth floor, she's dead wrong too,
because that window is closed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a4gChRWOunE/TZOWos6Gj7I/AAAAAAAATnY/qB0OD57TzTc/s1600/ZZZ.%2BUncropped%2BVersion%2BOf%2BTom%2BDillard%2BTSBD%2BPhoto.jpg

And if she's referring to the fifth floor, she's dead wrong, because I
think we can all agree that neither Bonnie Ray Williams nor Harold
Norman were holding any firearms when they were watching the
motorcade.

[John Fiorentino]

I don't "know" it David. I suspect it.
There is no way to know it.

BTW David, your Dillard photo from the Dallas Morning News Photo store is
STILL slightly cropped on the left side.

John F.




"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:b3b34345-fbad-47bb...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

JOHN F. SAID:

David, your Dillard photo from the Dallas Morning News Photo store is
STILL slightly cropped on the left side.

DVP:

So? I used it in reference to Carolyn Walther's comments about the
windows. And she sure wasn't talking about windows on the WEST side of
the building.

[John Fiorentino]

Yes David, but on your site it's represented as the "uncropped version."

That's all, no biggy.

John F.




"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:e663cb4c-8e97-4baa...@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

[Walt]

How do you know that she wasn't talkin about the open window at the
west end of the fourth floor?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Yes David, but on your site it's represented as the "uncropped
version." <<<

Yes, you're right (now that I look at it again). There is a sliver of
the west window sliced off in that photo. I've corrected the caption
on my photo site to remove the word "uncropped".

Thanks, John F.

[John Fiorentino]

David:

You're welcome

John F.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:cc2b8b78-0939-4472...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

[Marcus Hanson]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 12:04:15 PM UTC+10, John McAdams wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2013 18:56:29 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >.John:
>
> >
>
> >I don't know about "4 1/2 or 5 minutes after the shooting" but I do know
>
> >this:
>
> >
>
> >According to the HSCA.....
>
> >
>
> >"There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes after the last
>
> >shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109).
>
> >
>
> >Attached the Dillard (left) and the Powell (right) supposedly taken within
>
> >2 mins of ea. other.
>
> >
>
> >This has always created a difficult scenario to reconcile. (For me,
>
> >anyway)
>
> >
>
> >John F.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It's difficult to reconcile without saying that the HSCA made a
>
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Back in the 1990s, Dale Myers did a 3-D model of the Sniper's Nest and
>
> found that there was in fact no inconsistency.
>
>
>
> I'm not aware of any online version of that recreation. If anybody
>
> knows, maybe they can chime in.
>
>
>
> I find the "moved boxes" business questionably simply because I can't
>
> see why *anybody,* Oswald or a conspirator, would fool around with the
>
> boxes.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


Chiming in - posted by John Mytton at Duncan McRae's forum :

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5809.0.html

[John Fiorentino]

Marcus:

The HSCA examined this idea and others. They concluded there WAS movement.

I've read the HSCA details and I concur.

John F.





"Marcus Hanson" <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80255f28-0dbc-4df6...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/18/2013 6:34 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Marcus:
>
> The HSCA examined this idea and others. They concluded there WAS movement.
>
> I've read the HSCA details and I concur.
>
> John F.
>

In what way? No movement during the shooting. Rearranging of boxes after
the shooting. Are we back to Jean's box monster again?

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony nitpicker:

I agree with what the HSCA determined..............comprende??

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:51708d89$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Jean Davison]

> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5809.0.html-


Thanks for posting that, Marcus. Very nice, especially the
moving GIF that shows how the change in perspective between the two
photos changes the apparent location of the boxes. Dale Myers did a
similar study, I think.
Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/19/2013 5:42 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony nitpicker:
>
> I agree with what the HSCA determined..............comprende??
>
> John F.
>
>

No, you misrepresent what the HSCA said.

[Marcus Hanson]

On Friday, April 19, 2013 8:34:42 AM UTC+10, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Marcus:
>
>
>
> The HSCA examined this idea and others. They concluded there WAS movement.
>
>
>
> I've read the HSCA details and I concur.
>
>
>
> John F.
>

Hello John.

Yes, I know the HSCA studied this and concluded as you say. John McA's
point about =why=anyone would move the boxes after the assassination is
not at all new, but it remains a very good question.I have not yet seen a
reasonable answer to it.

What is your opinion of John Mytton's graphic?

Rgds,

Marcus

[John Fiorentino]

The HSCA considered all of that. They still concluded actual movement.

Perhaps a good read of their work is in order.

John F.




"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0d237b-a024-490f...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/19/2013 11:07 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Friday, April 19, 2013 8:34:42 AM UTC+10, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Marcus:
>>
>>
>>
>> The HSCA examined this idea and others. They concluded there WAS movement.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've read the HSCA details and I concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> John F.
>>
> Hello John.
>
> Yes, I know the HSCA studied this and concluded as you say. John McA's
> point about =why=anyone would move the boxes after the assassination is
> not at all new, but it remains a very good question.I have not yet seen a
> reasonable answer to it.
>

The DPD thought (mistakenly) that they had to SELL the notion that the
boxes were used as a gun rest in order to frame Oswald as the shooter.

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> The HSCA considered all of that. They still concluded actual movement.
>
> Perhaps a good read of their work is in order.
>
> John F.
>

I may be wrong, but I disagree with the HSCA about this
(among other things). I found this old post by Dale Myers that gives
his take on it:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5872e88792888d7c?hl=en
Jean

[John Fiorentino]

His graphic is inference, and he doesn't follow the evidence.

The HSCA did quite a good job.

Why? the boxes were moved is an open question.

John F.



"Marcus Hanson" <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:acde3fff-8933-4ecc...@googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Jean:

I could be wrong also...............I just don't think so.

Personally, not a fan of Myers, who I think has this dead wrong.

I also have many issues with the HSCA, but this is not one of them.

We can go back and forth forever. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

John F.





"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:124fa8e0-f671-488a...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Examination of both the Dillard and Powell photographs of the sixth floor
windows shows an open window with deep shadows in the region behind it. The
deep shadows indicate the film was underexposed in these regions; that is,
too little light reached the film or a clear recording of any details in the
room behind the window.

A number of enhancement processes were applied to the photographs in order
to bring out any details obscured within the underexposed regions. They were
as follows:

(1) Photographic enhancement (using photo-optical and photochemical
techniques) of the underexposed regions of the Dillard photograph undertaken
at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). (89)

(2) Autoradiographic enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Dillard
photograph at Stanford Research Institute, Inc. (SRI). (90)

(3) Computer enhancement of the underexposed regions of the Powell
photograph at the University of Southern California and the Aerospace Corp.
(91)

In addition, the Dillard photographs were scanned and digitized for possible
computer enhancement. Nevertheless, no such enhancement was performed
because the Panel decided that the autoradiographic technique had more
potential for success.

The photographic and computer processes made visible details that had been
obscured in the underexposed regions of the photographs. Both the
photographic enhancement by RIT and the autoradiographic enhancement by SRI
revealed a feature in the fifth floor window immediately beneath the sixth
floor window. Figure IV-1 (JFK exhibit F-153) shows one of the. original
Dillard photographs, and figure IV-2 is an autoradiographic enhancement. The
detail revealed by the processing appears to be a circular light fixture
hanging from the ceiling of the fifth floor room, with a light bulb in the
center of the fixture.* *

The Panel observed all enhanced images under optimum viewing conditions.
Reproduction of the enhanced images for this report results in a degradation
in quality. The Panel's decisions were reached on the basis of the image
quality of the original enhanced photographs, and not on the quality of
images as reproduced in this report. See par. 28 supra.

FIGURE IV-l.-Dillard photograph (unenhanced).
FIGURE IV-2.-Autoradiographic enhancement--Dillard photograph.

In the enhanced Powell photograph additional details became visible on the
boxes in the windows. (See figure IV-3, JFK exhibit F157.) Nevertheless in
neither photograph did the processing operations reveal any sign of a human
face or form in the open sixth floor or adjoining windows.

FIGURE IV-3.- JFK exhibit F157 - Powell photograph. Top: Enhanced window
area. Bottom: Unenhanced original.

The Panel concluded that the light fixture revealed in the fifth window
served as a "benchmark" against which the sixth floor enhancement could be
judged. Accordingly the enhancement of a recognizable object in the fifth
floor window gave the Panel confidence in its judgment there were no
recognizable human forms in the enhancement of the sixth floor windows.

Although human faces or forms were not visible in the enhanced photographs,
inspection of figures IV-2 and IV-3 reveals a difference in the boxes
visible through the sixth floor widow. in the Dillard photograph, only two
boxes are immediately visible, one each to the left and right of the window
frame. Nevertheless, the Powell photograph shows several additional boxes.
There are two possible explanations for this difference:

The Powell photograph may reflect only an apparent change in the boxes; the
different angle from which Powell viewed the depository may have caused a
different set of boxes within the room to be framed within the window;

(2) The boxes were moved during the time that elapsed between the Dillard
and Powell photographs.

Since the precise positions of Dillard and Powell at the time of the
photographs were unknown, it was not possible to calculate precisely the
region within the sixth floor room that would have been visible to each
photographer. In the Dillard photograph, the two boxes to the left and right
of the window frame appear to be in the full light of the Sun, with no
shadows cast on them by the frame of the partially opened window. In the
Powell photograph, it also appears that the boxes are in full sunlight, with
no shadow cast on them by the window frame.

A simple trigonometric calculation shows that the two boxes at the left and
right lie approximately 6 inches from the plane of the window (see appendix
A). If full sunlight is falling on the additional boxes in question in the
Powell photograph, they must also lie close to the plane of the window.* For
this reason, the Panel concluded that the additional boxes visible in the
Powell photograph were moved during the interval between the Dillard and
Powell well photographs.

An additional issue relating to the sixth floor windows was the possible
presence of a human face or form in the adjacent windows. None was found by
the Panel.

John F.


"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:124fa8e0-f671-488a...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the staff to put up JFK F-153. As I
understand it, Doctor, this is a picture that was taken a few seconds after
the shot; is that correct?

Dr. HUNT. I am not sure until I see the picture. Which one are you
referring to?

Mr. FITHIAN. I believe that is the one of the---TSBD?

Dr. HUNT. Oh, yes, right. Yes; in answer to your question, THAT WAS
TAKEN A FEW SECONDS AFTER THE LAST SHOT WAS FIRED. AT LEAST THAT IS
DILLARD'S TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, I BELIEVE.

Mr. FITHIAN. Now, directing your attention to that particular exhibit,
the photograph in the area of the sixth floor window, the open window, there
seems to be a change in the configuration of the boxes. How did the photo
panel account for this?

Dr. HUNT. The change in configuration of the boxes with respect to what,
with respect to another window view?

Mr. FITHIAN. No, with respect to other photos that you analyzed.

Dr. HUNT. OK. Probably the one most pertinent to that would be exhibit
which is showing next to it at the moment--I am not aware of the exhibit
number for it--but that shows the same window, TAKEN APPROXIMATELY ONE TO
TWO MINUTES AFTER THE FIRST PICTURE WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT, the one taken by
Dillard on the right, the one by Powell on the left.

You are correct in perceiving that there is something which we could
ascribe to a change in the configuration of the boxes.

For example, the picture on the right, we see only two boxes, one at the
left of the window sill and just a corner of the one peeping up at the right
of the window sill. Whereas, in the picture, the enlarged picture, for
example, on the left, we see not just the two boxes; you can still see, for
example, on the left there is the same small box at the left, there is the
same corner peeping up at the right. But now we have two or three other
boxes, apparently rising up in between them.

There are two possible explanations, I guess, for that, that the panel
considered. One is that we are seeing boxes which are in the room, but
because of our perspective, our line of sight, is different, we are seeing
different boxes than were visible in the other picture.

The second explanation is that there has been physically a movement of
the boxes in the room during the time which elapsed between the taking of
those pictures.

Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Now there is no way that we can know which it
is?

Dr. HUNT. There are ways of eliminating or narrowing down the
possibilities between those two choices. For example, given the geometry at
which you are viewing, and given the apparent sunlight on the boxes, you
could probably guess how far into the room those boxes do lie.

For example, if you look at the two boxes which appear to have been
introduced in the picture on the left, they appear to be in full sunlight,
which means they must not lie too far inside the room because this was high
noon, in November; the sun angle is simply not that low in Dallas at high
noon in November to shine sunlight very deep into the room. So they can
certainly not be too far behind the plane of the window; and THAT WOULD
THEREFORE TEND TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE BOX
WHICH LIES IN ONE POSITION IN THE ROOM AND IS SIMPLY TENDED TO BE VIEWED IN
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM TWO DIFFERENT VIEWING POINTS.

Mr. FITHIAN. You say it rules that out?

Dr. HUNT. It tends to rule it out, yes. It does not rule it out
completely, because we lack what is usually referred to as the analytical
information, from the position of the two photographers to precisely plot
the positions of those boxes by stereoanalysis techniques.

Mr. FITHIAN. WELL, IF IT GENERALLY TENDS TO RULE THAT OUT, THEN IT SEEMS
THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE LEFT WITH ONLY ONE CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS, THAT A
BOX WAS ACTUALLY MOVED.

Dr. HUNT. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY PERSONAL CONCLUSION, THAT SOMEBODY OR
SOMETHING MOVED BOXES AROUND IN THAT ROOM DURING THE TIME OF TAKING OF THOSE
TWO PICTURES. (4 HSCA 422-423, emphasis added)

John F.



"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:124fa8e0-f671-488a...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar."

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5171c9fa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

BETWEEN the taking of those two pictures. NOT during.
And not during the shots.

[Jean Davison]

On Apr 20, 6:24 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Jean:
>
> I could be wrong also...............I just don't think so.
>
> Personally, not a fan of Myers, who I think has this dead wrong.
>
> I also have many issues with the HSCA, but this is not one of them.
>
> We can go back and forth forever. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

Yes, that's fine with me, John.

Jean